Judgment ( 1. ) THE writ petitions have been preferred to declare the provisions of M. P. Labour Laws (Amendment) and Misc. Provisions Act, 2002 enforced as per notification dated 5-8-2005 as ultra vires being violative of Article 14 of constitution of India. ( 2. ) THE facts are being narrated from W. P. No. 27941/03 filed by labour Bar Association, Satna. It is averred in the petition that by M. P. Labour laws (Amendment) and Misc. Provisions Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Amendment Act"), the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the ID Act") and the provisions of M. P. Industrial relations Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the MPIR Act") have been amended so far as applicable to the State of M. P, the power to try the offences under the labour laws which was conferred on the Labour Courts vide M. P. Amendment Act No. 43 of 1981 has been taken away and conferred on the regular courts. It is submitted by the petitioner-Association of Advocates that the amendment Act has no reasonable nexus with the objects sought to be achieved of speedier justice. The Act has been promulgated on the basis that Labour Courts are over burdened, hence, the Labour Courts were not having time to adjudicate the disputes arising out the provisions of the ID Act and MPIR Act, the backdrop of the facts in which the Act was enacted indicates to the contrary. ( 3. ) IT is further submitted by petitioner-Association that ID Act has been enacted for promoting the industrial harmony with regard to speedy disposal of the cases of Labour class. Section 7 of the ID Act deals with the Constitution of Labour Courts. The appropriate Government is authorized to assign such offences as it deems fit. The MPIR Act is an Act to regulate relations of employer and employee. It provides for settlement of disputes and to provide other incidental matters thereto. The MPIR Act applies to such industries which are covered by notification issued under sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Act. Section 61 (1) (D) of the MPIR Act deals with the power of Labour Courts to try the offences punishable under the Act specified in IInd schedule prior to its amendment and where payment of compensation or conviction for offence is provided, to determine the compensation and order its payment. Section 61 (1) (D) of the MPIR Act deals with the power of Labour Courts to try the offences punishable under the Act specified in IInd schedule prior to its amendment and where payment of compensation or conviction for offence is provided, to determine the compensation and order its payment. Section 63 deals with cognizance of offence by the Labour Courts. Section 64 provides powers of the labour Courts and Industrial Courts in respect of criminal cases. Schedule II-A has been omitted from the MPIR Act by the Act No. 26 of 2003. ( 4. ) IT is submitted by petitioners Association that considering the pendency of large number of cases in the Criminal Courts, State of M. P, enacted amendment Act of 1981. It came into force with effect from 26-1-1982 by which the provisions of the ID Act and the MPIR Act in relation to its application in state in M. P. were amended. Under the ID Act the power was given to try the offences punishable under the Acts specified in Part B of IInd Schedule. The Labour Courts were conferred with the power of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class. Section 11-C provided for an appeal to the Industrial Court. The Labour Courts were conferred with the power of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class by virtue of Section 11-B. Section 11-D deals with the powers of Industrial Court hearing an appeal under Section 11 -C. ( 5. ) SIMILARLY, the provisions of the MPIR Act were also amended in the year 1982 and clause (D), sub-section (1) of Section 61 was amended centering the power to the Labour Courts to try the offences punishable under this Act as well as the Acts specified in Schedule II-A. Sections 63 and 64 were substituted by the aforesaid amending Act of 1981. ( 6. ) THE petitioner-Association further submitted that after 1992 arrears of cases in regular Criminal Courts have increased instead of decreasing and the regular Courts are not able decide the criminal cases. The criminal administration justice is on the verge of collapse due to delay in trial. The Apex Court in Kadra pahadiya and others Vs. State of Bihar, (1997) 4 SCC 287 has issued directions to appoint Special Magistrates to deal with petty cases as regular Criminal Courts are reeling under the arrears of cases. It is not fair and just to keep the criminal cases pending. The Apex Court in Kadra pahadiya and others Vs. State of Bihar, (1997) 4 SCC 287 has issued directions to appoint Special Magistrates to deal with petty cases as regular Criminal Courts are reeling under the arrears of cases. It is not fair and just to keep the criminal cases pending. It is violative of mandate of Article 39-A. Right of speedy justice is enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of India read with Article 14. ( 7. ) PETITIONER-ASSOCIATION submits that industries run by the State government have already been taken out of MPIR Act as such the work of Labour court has substantially reduced. The Labour Courts are in much better condition of disposing off the cases quickly due to substantial reduction of work. The amendment made is patently arbitrary and has no reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved of speedy disposal of the cases. In case the criminal cases which are pending before the Labour Courts are transferred to regular labour Courts, their adjudication would be delayed and affected, workmen would not be able to get justice, steps have been taken by the State Legislature, consequently, the writ petition has been preferred. ( 8. ) IN the reply filed by the State of M. P. , it is submitted that the amendment Act does not suffer from any legal or constitutional infirmity, association has no right to file the petition, none of their rights have been affected. Citizen has no right to select the forum for trial of offences committed by him, legislature in its wisdom has thought it apposite to confer such powers upon judicial Magistrate in place of Labour Courts. State Legislature is competent to enact the provisions, its competence has not been assailed, thus, the challenge to the Amendment Act is misconceived. ( 9. ) IT is further submitted by State of M. P. in its reply that provisions of ID Act and MPIR Act are penal in nature, if offence is proved, offender may have to suffer jail sentence also, provisions of the Act affects the life and liberty of the citizens, Judicial Magistrates are well acquainted and well versed, with the implementation of such penal laws the Amendment Act has, thus, nexus with the object sought to be achieved. It is further submitted by State of M. P. that the statement of object and reasons for enacting the impugned Amendment Act is not decisive for adjudication of legality and constitutional validity of the provisions contained in the Amendment Act. There is clear nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The offences would be tried by Competent Criminal Courts presided by qualified and trained judicial officers. The experience indicates that labour Courts were not able to effectively deal with such cases after the amendment was made in the year 1981. The delay in disposal of the cases involving the offences of provisions of the ID Act and the MPIR Act was not only affecting the labours, but was also causing delay in disposal of other cases which are necessarily to be tried by the Labour Courts. It was noticed that gap between filing and disposal of the cases was widening. Chart (R-l) has :been relied upon by State of M. P Thus, no fault can be found in the Amendment Act. Speed of disposal of criminal cases by Judicial Magistrates is much faster than that of Labour Courts. Apprehension of petitioner-Association of delay in disposal is baseless, petitioner-Association cannot come up in case of violation of fundamental right of some other persons who have not come forward to challenge the legality and validity of the Amendment Act. ( 10. ) A rejoinder has been filed by petitioner-Association contending that Association has right to maintain the petition. ( 11. ) WE also note in brief the facts mentioned in W. P. No. 12937/07 filed by M. P Transport Workers Federation. The Association is formed by the workers and is a registered trade Union. Reliance has been placed upon the statement of object and reasons mentioned in the Bill of Amendment Act of 1981 which provided that State of M. P. has a well organized labour judiciary functioning under MPIR Act and ID Act, Labour Courts handle the cases only under various labour laws with the objects and provisions of which the Presiding officers are very familiar. The Labour Courts used to decide criminal cases under labour laws also before the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 became effective. Thus, it was considered desirable to entrust all criminal work arising under the various labour laws to the Labour Courts. The Labour Courts used to decide criminal cases under labour laws also before the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 became effective. Thus, it was considered desirable to entrust all criminal work arising under the various labour laws to the Labour Courts. The statement and object of Amendment act, 2002 runs contrary to the object sought to be achieved rather it is going to frustrate it. The State of M. P. deleted 8 industries from the Schedule with effect from 10-10-05. In the Labour Courts pendency is not more than 2000 cases which is less than total cases before any CJM, pendency of the criminal cases before Judicial Magistrate 1st class is much more than any Labour Court. The object and reason for which the criminal cases arising out of various labour laws were entrusted to Labour Courts would be frustrated, statement (P-6) of the pendency of cases before various Labour Courts has been placed on record. ( 12. ) SHRI Sanjay Verma and Shri Siddharth Gulati, learned Counsels appearing for petitioners have submitted that the Amendment Act is ultra vires. There is no nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the Act, the provisions are violative of Articles 14,21 read with Article 39-A of Constitution of India. The purpose of enacting the Amendment Act, 1981 has been lost sight of while enacting Amendment Act, 2002, the Labour Courts are well equipped to deal with the offences committed under various labour laws as Labour Courts are dealing with aforesaid labour laws and are better equipped and considering the pendency of Cases before Labour Courts, it could not be said that they were over burdened, in fact regular Courts are over burdened as observed by the Apex Court in several decisions relied upon by them. They have submitted that by deleting certain industries in the year 2005 from the purview of MPIR Act, work of Labour courts has been substantially reduced, thus, Labour Courts were in better position to deal with the cases pertaining to offences arising out of various labour laws in the relevant schedule of the ID Act and the MPIR Act. Chart (R-l) indicates that 80 cases per month were decided by Labour Courts at the relevant time whereas total institution of civil and criminal cases was 41, thus, disposal was more than the institution. Chart (R-l) indicates that 80 cases per month were decided by Labour Courts at the relevant time whereas total institution of civil and criminal cases was 41, thus, disposal was more than the institution. Coming to criminal cases, only 10 criminal cases per month on an average were being instituted whereas 30 cases were being decided by Labour courts whereas in regular Courts institution is more as compared to disposal. Thus, the provision of Amendment Act, 2002 deserves to be struck down. ( 13. ) SHRI R. S. Patel, learned Addl. Advocate General and Shri Deepak awashty, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for State of M. P. have supported the provisions of the Amendment Act, 2002, they have submitted that there is no vested right in the forum where the cases should be tried. Labour Courts were over burdened with other cases as such it was thought appropriate to confer the powers upon the regular Courts by virtue of Amendment Act, 2002 by deleting certain provisions, regular Courts are better equipped to deal with the offences arising out of various labour laws. They have also submitted that deletion of certain industries was made, the decision of this Court in Heavy Electricals mazdoor Trade Union Vs. State of M. P. and others, 2006 (1) M. P. H. T. 551 (FB)= 2006 (2) MPLJ 289 has been stayed by the Apex Court by which notification excluding certain industries from the MPIR Act was declared as ultra vires. Order (R-l) has been passed by the Apex Court. The decision in M. P. Dainik vetan Bhogi Karmachari Sangh, Jabalpur and another Vs. State of M. P, 2003 (4) M. P. H. T. 199 is applicable in the case in which the notification has been held to be intra vires, it was held that power to exclude certain industries from the application of the MPIR Act is with the Government. ( 14. ) BEFORE dilating upon various submissions raised at Bar, we deem it appropriate to reproduce the amended provision by virtue of Amendment Act, 1981 amending provisions of ID Act and the MPIR Act. Sub-section (1-A) of section 7 of ID Act was incorporated in the year 1982 to the following effect :-"7 (1-A) : In addition to the functions specified in sub-section (1), the Labour Court shall try offences punishable under this Act and the Acts specified in Part B of the Second Schedule". Sub-section (1-A) of section 7 of ID Act was incorporated in the year 1982 to the following effect :-"7 (1-A) : In addition to the functions specified in sub-section (1), the Labour Court shall try offences punishable under this Act and the Acts specified in Part B of the Second Schedule". Sections 11-B, 11-C and 11-D were also incorporated under the ID Act which read thus :-"11-B. Power of Labour Courts in respect of criminal cases -In respect of offences punishable under this Act and the Acts specified in Part B of the Second Schedule a Labour Court shall have all the powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (No. 2 of 1974) of a Judicial Magistrate of the first class and in the trial of every such offence shall follow the procedure laid down in Chapter XXI of the said Code for summary trial and the rest of the provisions of the Code, shall, so far as may be, apply to such trial. 11-C. Appeal.- (1) An appeal shall lie to the Industrial Court constituted under Section 9 of the M. P. Audyogik Sambandh adhiniyam, 1960 (XXVII of 1960)- (a) against a conviction by labour Court, by the person convicted; (b) against an acquittal by Labour Court, by the State government; (c) for enhancement of sentence awarded by a Labour Court by the State Government. 11-D. Powers of Industrial Courts hearing appeal under section 11-C- In respect of offence punishable under this Act and the Acts specified in Part B of the Second Schedule, Industrial court hearing appeal under Section 11 -C shall have all the powers of the High Court under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) and shall follow such procedure as it may think fit in disposing of the appeal. " sections 61 (1) (D), 63 and 64 as amended in the year 1982 of the MPIR act read thus :-"61. Power of Labour Court- (1) In addition to powers conferred under other provisions of this Act, a Labour Court shall have power to- (D) try offences punishable under this Act and where the payment of compensation or conviction for an offence is provided for, determine the compensation and order its payment. 63. Power of Labour Court- (1) In addition to powers conferred under other provisions of this Act, a Labour Court shall have power to- (D) try offences punishable under this Act and where the payment of compensation or conviction for an offence is provided for, determine the compensation and order its payment. 63. Cognizance of offence- No Court shall take cognizance of any offence :- (a) punishable under this Act, except on complaint in writing made by the person affected thereby or the representative of employee or the employer or on a report in writing of the Labour Officer; (b) punishable under any of the Acts specified in Schedule II-A, except in accordance with the provisions of the respective Acts. 64. Power of Labour Court and Industrial Court in respect of criminal cases- (1) In respect of offences punishable under this act a Labour Court shall have all the powers under the Code of criminal Procedure, 1973 (No. 2 of 1974) of a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class and in the trial of every such offence shall follow the procedure laid down in Chapter XXI of the said Code for summary trial and the rest of such provisions of the Code shall, so far as may be, apply the trial. (2) In respect of offences punishable under this Act or any of the acts specified in Schedule II-A, the Industrial Court shall have all the powers of the High Court under the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (No. 2 of 1974 ). " ( 15. ) M. P. Bill No. 32 of 1981 provided the statement of object and reasons thus :- "statement of Objects and Reasons- The State has a well-organised Labour Judiciary functioning both under the Madhya pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 and the Industrial Disputes act, 1947. The Labour Courts handle cases only under the various labour Laws with the objects and provisions of which the presiding Officers are very familiar. The Labour Courts decided criminal cases under labour laws also before the Code of Criminal procedure Code, 1973, became effective. The Labour Courts handle cases only under the various labour Laws with the objects and provisions of which the presiding Officers are very familiar. The Labour Courts decided criminal cases under labour laws also before the Code of Criminal procedure Code, 1973, became effective. " The objects of the Amendment Act, 2002 as mentioned in the Act is as follows :- "statement of Objects and Reasons.- The Labour Courts have been constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 to dispose of the cases relating to termination, workmen compensation, industrial disputes, less payment claim of the workmen. After the enactment of M. P. Labour Laws (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions)Act, 1981 (No. 43 of 1981) powers to try offences punishable under the various labour laws are vested in the Presiding Officers of the Labour Courts in the State. 2. Consequent to the aforesaid amendment Act the basic functioning of the Labour Courts got over burdened by the additional work and as a result, the disposal of aforesaid cases of workmen are being adversely affected. 3. In the light of above the State Government has decided to empower again the Judicial Magistrate to try offences arising out of various labour laws. 4. It is, therefore, proposed to amend the Industrie Disputes Act, 1947 in its application to the State of Madhy Pradesh and the madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 suitably. 5. Hence this Bill. " Prior to enactment of Cr. PC, 1973, power to try with the criminal cases arising out under the labour laws was with the Labour Courts. It was felt necessary by the State of M. P. to enact Amendment Act, 1981. The object and reasons behind the enactment were that the State has a well-organized labour judiciary functioning under the ID Act and the MPIR Act. The Labour Courts were having the expertise in the labour laws and they were familiar with the object and provisions of various labour laws. Amendment Act of 1981 was enacted in due recognition of the fact that Labour Courts decided the criminal cases under labour laws also before the Cr. PC, 1973 became effective, it was considered desirable to entrust all the criminal work arising under the various labour laws to the labour Courts. Amendment Act of 1981 was enacted in due recognition of the fact that Labour Courts decided the criminal cases under labour laws also before the Cr. PC, 1973 became effective, it was considered desirable to entrust all the criminal work arising under the various labour laws to the labour Courts. The statement of object and reasons mentioned in Bill behind enactment of Amendment Act of 2002 provides that after enactment -of M. P. Labour Laws Amendment Act, 1981, power to try offences punishable under various labour laws are vested in the Presiding Officers of the Labour Courts of the State, consequent thereto the basic function of Labour Courts got over burdened by the additional work and as a result disposal of aforesaid cases of workmen are being adversely affected. In the light of above, State Government has decided to empower the Judicial Magistrates to try offences arising out of under various labour laws. Labour Courts have to deal with the cases relating to termination, workmen compensation, industrial disputes, less payment claim of the workmen. By Amendment Act, 2002, in the ID Act, wherever the words and letters "in Part-A of the Second Schedule" occur, the Second Schedule has been substituted. Sub-section (1-A) of Section 7, Sections 11-B, 11-C and 11-D of ID act have been omitted. Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of ID Act has been amended to provide "no Court inferior to that of Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under this Act. " In second Schedule Part- A and Part-B have been omitted. In the MPIR Act, the acts specified in Schedule II-A have been omitted. The words "and the Acts specified in Schedule II-A" have been omitted. Section 63 has also been substituted. Amendment Act of 2002 was published in M. P. Gazette (Extra ordinary), dated 5-8-03. Relevant portion of the M. P. Labour Laws (Amendment)and Misc. Provisions Act, 2002 is quoted thus :- "1. Short title and commencement - (1) This Act may be called the Madhya Pradesh Labour Laws (Amendment) and miscellaneous Provisions Act, 2002. (2) It shall come into force on such date as the State Government may, by notification, appoint. PARTI amendment of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 2. Provisions Act, 2002 is quoted thus :- "1. Short title and commencement - (1) This Act may be called the Madhya Pradesh Labour Laws (Amendment) and miscellaneous Provisions Act, 2002. (2) It shall come into force on such date as the State Government may, by notification, appoint. PARTI amendment of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 2. Amendment of Central Act No. 14 of 1947 in its application to the State of Madhya Pradesh.- The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (No. 14 of 1947) (hereinafter in this Part referred to as the principal Act) shall in its application to the State of Madhya pradesh, be amended in the manner hereinafter in this Part provided :-3. Amendment of Central Act No. 14 of 1947- In the Principal act- (i) throughout the Act, for the words and letters "in Part- A of the Second Schedule " wherever they occur, the words and letters "in the Second Schedule" shall be substituted. (ii) in Section 7, sub-section (1-A) shall be omitted. (iii) Sections 11 -B, 11 -C and 11 -D shall be omitted. (iv) in Section 34, for sub-section (2) as substituted by the madhya Pradesh Labour Laws (Amendment) and miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1981 (No. 43 of 1981), the following sub-section shall be substituted, namely :-" (2) No Court inferior to that of Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under this Act. " (v) in the Second Schedule- (a) the words and letters "part- A" shall be omitted. (b) "part-B " shall be omitted. PART II amendment of the Madhya Pradesh Audhyogik Sambandh adhiniyam, 1960 (No. 27 of 1960)4. Amendment of Madhya Pradesh Act No. 27 of I960.-In the Madhya Pradesh Audhyogik Sambandh Adhiniyam, 1960 (No. 27 of 1960) :- (i) in Section 61- (a) in Paragraph D of sub-section (1), the words and letters "and the Acts specified in Schedule II-A" shall be omitted; (b) in sub-section (3), the words and letters "and the acts specified in Schedule II-A" shall be omitted. (ii) For Section 63, the following Section shall be substituted, namely-"63. Cognizance of Offence- No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act, except on a complaint in writing made by the person affected thereby or the representative of employees or the employer or on a report in writing of the Labour Officer. (ii) For Section 63, the following Section shall be substituted, namely-"63. Cognizance of Offence- No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act, except on a complaint in writing made by the person affected thereby or the representative of employees or the employer or on a report in writing of the Labour Officer. " (iii) in Section 64- (a) in sub-section (1), the words and letters "or any of the Acts specified in Schedule II-A" shall be omitted. (b) in sub-section (2), the words and letters "or any of the Acts specified in Schedule II-A" shall be omitted. (iv) Schedule II-A shall be omitted. " ( 16. ) BEFORE dilating upon the issues involved in the case, we deem it appropriate to consider principles laid down in various decisions. In Dhirendra kumar Vs. Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs to the Government of West Bengal, AIR 1954 SC 424 , it has been laid down that classified must be based on some real and substantial distinction bearing a just and reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved and cannot be made arbitrarily and without any substantial basis. In Asgarali Nazarali Singaporewalla Vs. State of bombay, AIR 1957 SC 503 the Criminal Law Amendment Act providing for special Courts and special procedure was upheld, it did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the provisions had the necessary effect of bringing about a speedier trial of these offences and this intelligible differentia had rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Act. In Kangshari Haldar and another Vs. The State of West Bengal, AIR 1960 SC 457 , the Apex Court has observed that having ascertained the policy and the object of the Act the Court should apply the dual test in examining its validity. Is the classification rational and based on intelligible differentia, and, has the basis of differentiation any rational nexus with its avowed policy and object? If both these tests are satisfied, the statute must be held to be valid; and in such a case the consideration as to whether the same result could not have been better achieved by adopting a different classification would be foreign to the scope of the judicial enquiry. If either of the two tests is not satisfied, the statute must be struck down as violative of Article 14. If either of the two tests is not satisfied, the statute must be struck down as violative of Article 14. Final decision about the vires of any impugned provision must depend upon the decision which the Court reaches having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case, the general scheme of the impugned Act and the nature and effect of the provisions the vires of which are under examination. In state of Nagaland Vs. Ratan Singh, AIR 1967 SC 212 , Sections 6 and 7 of scheduled Districts Act were held to be valid as different treatment was contemplated under Article 372-A of the Constitution of these tracts and the differences are justified by the vast differences between the needs of social conditions in Nagaland and the various stages of development of different parts. In Jagdish Pandey Vs. The Chancellor, University of Bihar and others, AIR 1968 SC 353 , Section 4 of Bihar State Universities Amendment Act was held not to be violative of Article 14 of Constitution as it could not be said that there was no nexus with the object to be achieved. In M/s. Gammon India Ltd. and others Vs. Union of India and others, (1974) 1 SCC 596 , the Apex Court emphasized the test of rational relation between the Act and its object. In Shiv dutt Rai Fateh Chand and others Vs. Union of India and others, (1983) 3 SCC 529 , the Apex Court held that Section 48 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 cannot he said to confer an uncanalised, unguided and arbitrary power on the authority levying penalty and was not violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India. In Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others, (1983) 4 SCC 166 , the Apex Court while examining the conditions imposed by sub-ordinate legislature held that it must be necessary to effectuate the purpose and relatable to the object of the statute to remain intra vires. The conditions which can be prescribed to effectuate the purpose must a fortiori, be valid. It is the constitutional obligation of the State to protect socially and economically weaker segments of the society against exploitation. In Shashikant Laxman Kale and another Vs. The conditions which can be prescribed to effectuate the purpose must a fortiori, be valid. It is the constitutional obligation of the State to protect socially and economically weaker segments of the society against exploitation. In Shashikant Laxman Kale and another Vs. Union of India and another, air 1990 SC 2114 , the classification made under Income Tax Act Section 10 (10c) between the public sector employees and private sector employees was held not to be discriminatory or arbitrary as it achieved object of streamlining public sector by curing it of one of its ailments of over staffing. In Krishnan Kakkanth Vs. Government of Kerala and others, AIR 1997 sc 128 , in the context of policy decision of the Government, the Apex Court observed that to ascertain unreasonableness and arbitrariness in the context of article 14 of the Constitution, it is not necessary to enter upon any exercise for finding out the wisdom in the policy decision of the State Government. It is immaterial if a better or more comprehensive policy decision could have been taken. It is equally immaterial if it can be demonstrated that the policy decision is unwise and is likely to defeat the purpose for which such decision has been taken. Unless the policy decision is demonstrably capricious or arbitrary and not informed by any reason whatsoever or it suffers from the vice of discrimination or infringes any statute or provisions of the Constitution, the policy decision cannot be struck down. In Welfare Assocn. ARP, Maharashtra and another Vs. Ranjit P. Gohil and others, AIR 2003 SC 1266 , the Apex Court held that legislation intended for benefit of "well defined class" is not open to challenge under Article 14 of Constitution of India. The Court can interfere only on being convinced that the classification would result in pronounced inequality or palpable arbitrariness on the touchstone of Article 14. In Kadra Pahadiya and others Vs. State of Bihar (supra) the provision for appointment of Special Judicial Magistrates/special Metropolitan Magistrates under Sections 13 (l)and 18 (l)of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were held not to be violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India. The idea underlying the provision for appointment of Special Judicial Magistrates/special Metropolitan magistrates under Sections 13 (1) and 18 (1) respectively is to relieve the regular courts of the burden of trying those cases which could be disposed of by such magistrates. The idea underlying the provision for appointment of Special Judicial Magistrates/special Metropolitan magistrates under Sections 13 (1) and 18 (1) respectively is to relieve the regular courts of the burden of trying those cases which could be disposed of by such magistrates. The High Court was given the power under the provisions to specify the qualification/experience that would be required for discharge of duties by such Magistrates and the period for which such appointments may be made. The object is to reduce the burden of pendency in regular Courts. The appointees should view the call as a social obligation and not employment, indeed, as a social service to the society. The withdrawal of petty cases with a view to reduce the burden on regular Courts is improper. It was also ordered that High Court will also ensure that regular Magistrates are relieved of petty cases, they would dispose of large number of more serious cases so that the offenders are brought to book at an early date and the innocent are not unnecessarily vexed for long spells. The Apex Court has laid down thus :- "23. There can be little doubt that when the calendars of Criminal courts (Magistracy) in most of the States, barring a few geographically small States, are clogged and as a result, trial of cases is delayed, there is no justification for not setting a part of the machinery envisioned by the Code into motion. The basic idea in providing for the appointment of Judicial Magistrates, second class, is to ensure that petty cases do not occupy the time of the regular Magisterial Courts. So also the idea underlying the provisions for the appointment of Special Judicial Magistrates/ special Metropolitan Magistrates under Sections 13 (1) and 18 (1) respectively, is to relieve the regular Courts of the burden of trying those cases which could be disposed of by such Magistrates. Parliament has advisedly left the decision as to the choice of power to be conferred on such Magistrates with the High Court. Parliament has advisedly left the decision as to the choice of power to be conferred on such Magistrates with the High Court. Once a request is received from the Central/state Government by the High court, the ball is entirely in the High Court, and it is the High court and the High Court alone which has to decide on the number of appointments to be made, the choice of personnel to be entrusted with such power, and the extent of power to be conferred on such persons. It is the High Court which has to specify the qualification and/or experience that would be required for the discharging of duties by such Magistrates. As pointed out earlier, the period for which such appointments may be made must not exceed one year at a time, which shows that these are not appointments by way of regular entry into service, and are meant to be short-duration appointments to reduce the burden of pendency in regular Courts. "in our view, the appointees should view the call as a social obligation and not employment; indeed as a social service to society. That is the spirit of Sections 13 and 18 and every appointee must take the call in that spirit and not expect payment as if they are in the service of the concerned State/union Territory. That is the reason why the said two provisions expect persons who have retired or are about to retire from Government service to be appointed to help clear the pendency. Viewed from this angle it seems fairly clear to us that retired Judicial Officers, Officers of the Registry of District Courts and High Courts, as well as other government servants who have the specified experience and qualification, can be requested to accept appointments as part of social service and they may be paid a fee to meet their out-of-pocket expenses and honorarium. We are sure that the High Courts will find any number of public spirited, retired persons available to extend a helping hand to the Criminal Justice System in the country. The High Court, we must add by way of caution, must be extremely careful in the conferment of power and should do so based on the qualification and experience of each appointee. 26. The High Court, we must add by way of caution, must be extremely careful in the conferment of power and should do so based on the qualification and experience of each appointee. 26. In the past, in certain States, large numbers of such petty cases were withdrawn with a view towards reducing the burden on the regular Courts. We are of the opinion that unless a machinery is set up to ensure that such cases will not pile up once again after the system is put on an even keel by the withdrawal of such cases, such a measure will not serve any purpose but will instead, send a wrong signal to the offenders that they can commit such infractions with impunity as nothing will happen to them, and ultimately the cases would be withdrawn. That will bring about more indiscipline in society rather create a culture of discipline which is so vital for national growth. But, if an adequate machinery of the type envisioned by Sections 13 and 18 of the Code is placed in position to ensure that cases do not pile up in future and then the cases are withdrawn with a view to placing the system on an even keel, it will achieve the desired objective to bring about discipline in society and eradicate crime. That is because the wrong-doer will know that he will be immediately hauled up before a Magistrate and would be punished if found guilty. If the load of such petty crimes is taken out of the regular Courts, those Courts would have time to deal with more serious crimes rather than have their time consumed by such petty cases. Besides, petty cases would also be disposed of with speed if sufficient number of section Class Magistrates and Special Judicial/special metropolitan Magistrates are appointed. With such a huge pendency, it is difficult to understand the indifference in utilising this machinery envisioned by the Code. The decision to invoke these provisions was taken in 1993 at the Conference of Chief ministers and Chief Justices which was presided over by the Prime minister and was attended by the Chief Justice of India and yet there was almost halting progress. Even today the machinery has not been set up in some States, and where it has been set up, it is not in full strength as the status position indicated State-wise earlier would show. Even today the machinery has not been set up in some States, and where it has been set up, it is not in full strength as the status position indicated State-wise earlier would show. " ( 17. ) IT is necessary to consider the pendency of cases and disposal made by the Labour Courts. Chart (R-1) filed by respondent/state of M. P. indicates that in the month of February, 2004, total number of criminal cases filed were 274 in Labour Courts, total number of criminal cases decided were 761, thus, decision of criminal cases by the Labour Courts was approximately two times more than the institution. The Labour Courts were reducing the arrears at a rapid pace. Total number of civil cases filed in February, 2004 were 680 whereas total number of civil cases decided were 1079. Total number of cases pending at the end of the month in the various Labour Courts were 51,816, there was reduction in total pendency of the civil and criminal cases before the Labour Courts, at the beginning of the month 52,732 cases were pending. Thus, as per chart on an average 11 criminal cases were filed in every Labour Court whereas more than 32 criminal cases were decided on an average by each of the Labour Court. Figure is also healthy with respect to disposal of civil cases, institution was less, disposal was more. ( 18. ) WHEN we consider the pendency before the regular Courts of lower judiciary as per data available in the High Court, in the year 2005 pendency as on 31 -12-05 was 7,98,020 as on 31 -12-2006 it was 7,91,290 as on 31 -12-2007 it was 8,23,962. The arrears in regular Court of lower judiciary i. e. , JMFC/cjm/ cj Class- II / CJ Class- I is increasing. Disposal in 2005 was 8,02,448, in the year 2006 it was 7,62,010, in the year 2007 it came down to 6,31,633. The pendency has been increased. The arrears in regular Court of lower judiciary i. e. , JMFC/cjm/ cj Class- II / CJ Class- I is increasing. Disposal in 2005 was 8,02,448, in the year 2006 it was 7,62,010, in the year 2007 it came down to 6,31,633. The pendency has been increased. Considering the heavy burden on the lower judiciary, Criminal laws Local M. P. Amendment called Code of Criminal Procedure (M. P. Amendment) Act, 2007 has been enacted by which power to try offences under sections 317,318,326,363,363-A, 365,377,392,393,394,409,435,466,467, 468,471,472,473,474,475,476,477 and 477-A of the IPC were given to Court of Sessions instead of Magistrates of the First Class as burden on the lower judiciary is increased which also indicates that regular criminal Courts are already over burdened. Considering juxtaposed the pendency before the Labour Courts as per statement (R-l) and also considering the disposal rate of Labour Courts which was quite handsome of both civil as well as criminal cases to be dealt with by them under the ID Act and the MPIR Act and under various other labour laws, it could not be said that the Labour Courts were not having sufficient time to deal with the cases of termination, workmen compensation, industrial disputes, less payment claim of workmen or that they were overburdened by the additional work given under the Amendment Act, 1981. It could not be said that disposal of the cases required to be adjudicated by the Labour Courts was adversely affected due to the Amendment Act of 1981. ( 19. ) NO doubt about it that there is no right to be tried before a forum. In the instant case the Amendment Act, 2002 fails to achieve the aims and object of its enactment, it rather defeats the very purpose of main enactment and being arbitrary is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court in the matter of "rv", A Judicial Officer (Criminal Appeal No. 1152/2004, decided on 6-10-2004) has observed that it is a judicially noticeable fact that subordinate Courts are over burdened and are called upon to deal with such number of cases as is totally out of proportion with what a Judge can reasonably be supposed to handle. In Kadra Pahadiya and others Vs. In Kadra Pahadiya and others Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1997 SC 3750 the Apex Court has also observed that in most of States Criminal courts (Magistracy) are clogged, as a result of which trial of cases is delayed. In nagpur Improvement Trust and another Vs. Vithal Rao and others, AIR 1973 sc 689 , the Apex Court held that the classification made must be founded on intelligible differentia, the object itself cannot be discriminatory, it cannot be justified on the ground that there is a reasonable classification because it has rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. The State could not have overlooked the fact that while it was enacting the provisions of Amendment Act, 2002, what would be the plight of the cases relating to offences under labour laws before the regular Criminal Courts. Moreover it could not be said from the data that Labour Courts were overburdened considering the figure of disposal and pendency mentioned in Chart (R-l) filed by the State. The provision appear not only arbitrary but unreasonable also. In bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Bombay Environmental Action Group and others, (2006) 3 SCC 434, the Apex Court has observed that unreasonableness is certainly a ground of striking down a subordinate legislation. In Smt. Maneka gandhi Vs. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 , the Apex Court has also referred to decision in Rustom Cavasjee Cooper Vs. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 564 , in which it was observed that object of law or executive action is irrelevant when it establishes the petitioners contention about the fundamental right. There are restrictions imposed were held to be violative of right of freedom of speech and expression. In the instant case, right of speedy trial by and large is being defeated by the Amendment Act of 2002. Speedier trial is fundamental right as held by Apex Court in Hussainara khatoon and others Vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna, AIR 1979 SC 1360 , Muralidhar Dayandeo Kesekar Vs. Vishwanath Pandu Barde and another, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 549 and Unni Krishnan, J. P. and others Vs. State of Andhra pradesh and others, AIR 1993 SC 2178 . In Abdul Rehman Antulay and others Vs. R. S. Nayak and another, (1992)1 SCC 225 the Apex Court held thus :- "40. Vishwanath Pandu Barde and another, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 549 and Unni Krishnan, J. P. and others Vs. State of Andhra pradesh and others, AIR 1993 SC 2178 . In Abdul Rehman Antulay and others Vs. R. S. Nayak and another, (1992)1 SCC 225 the Apex Court held thus :- "40. The learned Judge, however, posed a question which he left to be answered at a later stage. The question posed was : What is the consequence of denial of this right? Does it necessarily entail the consequence of quashing of charges/trial? That question we shall consider separately but what is of significance is, this decision does establish the following propositions :- (1) Right to speedy trial is implicit in the broad sweep and content of Article 21. (2) That unless the procedure prescribed by law ensures a speedy trial it cannot be said to be reasonable, fair or just. Expeditious trial and freedom from detention are part of human rights and basic freedoms and that a judicial system which allow incarceration of men and women for long periods of time without trial must be held to be denying human rights to such under trials. 48. The Court then examined the facts of the case before it in the light of the said principles and found that the accused himself was responsible for a fair part of the delay and that he has also been unable to establish how he was prejudiced in the conduct of his defence on account of delay. The Court also took into consideration the nature of offence, namely an economic offence which jeopardizes the economy of the country and held that it is not a case which calls for interference. Accordingly, it set aside the judgment of the High Court. In the course of his judgment, chinnappa Reddy, J. , noted that "delay is a known defence tactic" and also that where the prosecution has a weak case, it may resort to same tactic with a view to keep the prosecution pending as long as possible. He observed (SCC Page 612, Para 1); "denial of speedy trial may with or without proof of something more lead to an inevitable of prejudice and denial of justice. It is prejudice to a man to be detained without trial. It is prejudice to a man to be denied a fair trial. He observed (SCC Page 612, Para 1); "denial of speedy trial may with or without proof of something more lead to an inevitable of prejudice and denial of justice. It is prejudice to a man to be detained without trial. It is prejudice to a man to be denied a fair trial. " In Surinder Singh alias Shingara Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2005) 7 scc 387 and in T. V. Vatheeswaran Vs. The State of Tamilnadu, AIR 1983 SC 361 (2), the Apex Court observed that right to speedy trial is a fundamental right implicit in the broad sweep and content of Article 21. Hussainara Khatoon and others Vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna (supra), it is held that speedy trial is the essence of criminal justice and there can be no doubt that delay in trial by itself constitutes denial of justice. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused have the right of speedy trial, it is implicit in the broad sweep and contents of article 21. No procedure which does not ensure a reasonably quick trial can be regarded as "reasonable, fair or just" and it will foul of Article 21. It is also observed in Fratap Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and another, (2005) 3 SCC 551 that right to speedy trial is not a new right, it is embedded in our Constitution in terms of Articles 14 and 21 thereof. It is also emphasized in Narinderjit Singh sahni and another Vs. Union of India and others, (2002) 2 S CC 210. In Moti Lal saraf Vs. State ofjandk and another, (2006) 10 SCC 560 , the Apex Court held thus :- "52. In order to make the administration of criminal justice effective, vibrant and meaningful, the Union of India, the State governments and all authorities concerned must take necessary steps immediately so that the important constitutional right of the accused to a speedy trial does not remain only on paper or is a mere formality. " ( 20. ) IT is required to be gone into whether the object of the Act has the nexus with the objective sought to be achieved by the Amendment Act of 2002. Right to speedy trial is a well recognized fundamental right as laid down by the apex Court by interaction of Articles 14,21 and 39-A of Constitution of India. ) IT is required to be gone into whether the object of the Act has the nexus with the objective sought to be achieved by the Amendment Act of 2002. Right to speedy trial is a well recognized fundamental right as laid down by the apex Court by interaction of Articles 14,21 and 39-A of Constitution of India. The purpose behind the enactment of Amendment Act of 1981 was that State has well organized labour judiciary having expertise to deal with labour cases and only the Labour Courts handle the cases under various labour laws. Labour judges are familiar with the objects and provisions of labour laws, thus, it was considered desirable to entrust all criminal work arising under various labour laws to Labour Courts. The constitution of Administrative Tribunals has been upheld by the Apex Court on the ground of expertise and special skill required in s. P. Sampath Kumar Vs. Union of India and others, (1987) 1 SCC 124 and L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India and others, (1997) 3 SCC 261 . The constitution of Consumer Forums was also approved by Apex Court in State of karnataka Vs. Vishwabharathi House Building Coop. Society and others, (2003)2 SCC 412 , on the ground that such cases require special approach. The Apex court has emphasized that Special Magistrates should be appointed as regular criminal Courts are reeling with the burden of the cases and it is required to be drastically reduced. By the aforesaid Amendment Act of 2002 the purpose of speedy disposal of criminal cases will be totally frustrated when State has enacted amendment of 1981 considering the expertise. The burden on the regular Criminal courts was already too much. The Labour Courts are empowered to decide offences arising out of various labour laws with which they are dealing and are familiar, it would defeat the very purpose of the enactment and render Amendment act, 2002 arbitrary couched in the form of speedier disposal of other kind of cases by delaying other category of cases. The situation before Labour Courts was not such so as to effect the amendment. The situation before Labour Courts was not such so as to effect the amendment. The burden on Labour Courts has been substantially reduced and presently it is comparatively lesser due to deletion of certain industries from the purview of the MPIR Act also by amendment made in the year 2005, validity of which is under examination before the Apex court and interim stay has been granted on the decision rendered by this Court in Heavy Electricals Mazdoor Trade Union Vs. State of M. P. and others (supra ). Due to the trial of offences under the various labour laws effective functioning of the Labour Courts was not adversely affected as apparent from Annexure (R-l ). Thus, the basic function of the Labour Courts could not be said to be over burdened by the trial of offences punishable under various labour laws which power was vested by way of Amendment Act of 1981. State has completely ignored and over looked the data which indicates that Labour Courts were functioning more effectively as compared to the already over burdened regular criminal Courts where arrears are increasing. It cannot be denied that Labour courts are well equipped also to deal with the cases arising out of various labour laws as the Labour Courts are already dealing with the labour laws out of which offences arise and they are well acquainted in such branch of law which is a specialized branch with the aims and objects of labour laws. On the other hand, the Amendment Act of 2002 also defeats the right of persons involved in the trial of offence to get speedier justice which is basic fundamental right as we have held that Labour Courts were not overburdened, thus, there was no rational nexus to be achieved by excluding criminal cases by the Amendment Act of 2002 from the jurisdiction of Labour Courts and to give the power to try them to the regular Courts. There is nexus between the cases to be tried by the Labour courts and the offences under the labour laws, object of labour laws, thus, the classification made of excluding cases from the Labour Courts under the guise that the Labour Courts were overburdened whereas they were not, they were rather well equipped to deal with the kind of cases handed over by the impugned act to the regular Courts. ( 21. ( 21. ) CONSEQUENTLY, we have no hesitation in striking down the M. P. Labour Laws (Amendment) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 2002 as ultra vires as it fails to achieve the purpose, it is clearly arbitrary and rather defeats the provisions of existing enactment. The writ petitions are allowed. We direct the trial of the cases to be made before the Labour Courts. The validity of the decisions rendered and proceedings taken by regular Courts will not be adversely affected by the decision. No costs.