BEFORE THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF MEERASTAN

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

W.P (CIVIL) NO OF 2014

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

MEERASTAN

MAZDOOR MITHRA… .......................... PETITIONER

v
REPUBLIC OF MEERASTAN… ............... RESPONDENTS
& ANR

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS

Memorial for the Respondents

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

 TABLE OF CASES

 BOOKS

 STATUTES

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

 STATEMENTS OF FACTS

 ISSUES RAISED

I. Whether the Public Interest Litigation filed under Art.32 of The

Constitution of India is maintainable?
II. Whether the amendments made by The Republic of Meerastan are to be
struck down?
III. Whether „Labour Laws‟ are better positioned in State List than in
Concurrent List?

 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

 ARGUMENTSADVANCED

 PRAYER

Memorial for the Respondents

 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

All India Reporter

AIR

& And

Ano Another

Art Article

Col Colonel

Corpn Corporation

Divl Divisional
DLT Delhi Law Times

Edn Edition

Hon‟ble Honourable
HP Himachal Pradesh
ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights
ILO International Labour Organisation
ILR Indian Law Reporter

J Justice

KLT Kerala Law Times

Ltd Limited

MM Mazdoor Mitra

NGO Non-Governmental Oraganisation

No Number

Ors Others

PIL Public Interest Litigation

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Reporter

Memorial for the Respondents

Supl Supplementary

UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights

UOI Union Of India

V Versus

Vol Volume

Memorial for the Respondents

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

TABLE OF CASES

1. Andhra Industrial Works v Chief Controller Of Imports And Otrs ; AIR 1974 SC 1539.
2. Asha Sharma v Chandigarh Administration ; (2011)10 SCC 86.
3. Balco Employees’s Union v Union Of India (2002)2 SC 333.
4. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union Of India (1984) 3 SCC 161; AIR 1984 SC 802.
5. Behram Khurshid Pesikaka v State Of Bombay ; AIR 1955 SC 12.
6. Bombay Dyeing v BombayEnvironmental Action Group; AIR (2006)3 SCC 434 Para 200.
7. Dr. D.C Wadhwa & Otrs v State Of Bihar And Otrs; AIR 1987 SC 579.
8. I.R. Coelho v State (2007)2 SCC 1.
9. Kanhiaya Lal Sethiya v Union Of India(1997)6 SCC573.
10. Kartar Singh v State Of Punjab ; (1994)3 SCC 569.
11. Kirloskar Bros Ltd. v ESI Corpn ; AIR (1996)2 SCC 682.
12. M.C. Mehta v Union Of India (1987)1 SCC 395.
13. Man Singh v State Of Punjab; AIR (1985)4 SCC 146.
14. Noise Pollution (V) In Re (2005)5 SCC 733 Para 10.
15. Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corpn ; AIR 1986 SC 180.
16. P.Venugopal v State (2008)5 SCC 1.
17. People’s Union For Democratic Rights v Union Of India; AIR 1982 SC 1473.
18. S.P. Guptha v Union Of India ;AIR 1982 SC 149.
19. State Of Himachal Pradesh & Anr v Ravinder Singh ; AIR 2008 SC 533.
20. State Of Madras v Champakam Dorairajan ; AIR 1951 SC 226.
21. State Of Uttaranchal v Balwant Singh Chawful ; AIR 2010 SC 2550.

Memorial for the Respondents

BOOKS REFERRED

1. , D.D.Basu, Introduction to Constitution of India , (21st Edition, Kamal

Law House 2011)
2. , M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (7th Edition, Lexis Nexis 2014)
3. , V.N.Shukla ,Constitution of India, (12th Edition, Eastern Book Company
2013)
4. Dr. Avtar Singh & Dr. Harpeet Kaur ,Introduction to Industrial & Labour
Law( 2nd Edn Lexis Nexis, Nagpur)
5. H.M.Seervai, Constitutional Law of India, (4th Edition, M .Tripathi Pvt .
Ltd 2008)
6. J.N. Pandey ,Constitutional Law of India, ( 51st Edition , Central Law
Agency 2014)
7. Khan & Khan Commentary on Labour & Industrial Law (2 nd Edn Asian
Law House, Hyderabad)
8. P. M Bakshi, The Constitution Of India (11th Edn, Universal Law
Publishing Ltd 2011)
9. P.L Malik P.L Malik’s Handbook of Labour & Industrial Law,(15th Edn,
Eastern Book Company, Lucknow)

STATUTES REFERRED

1. The Apprentices Act, Act No 52 1961

2. The Factories Act,Act No 63 1948
3. The Industrial Disputes Act, Act No 14 1947
4. The Minimum wages Act, Act No 11 1948

Memorial for the Respondents

TREATIES & CONVENTIONS

1. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UN), 1948

2. International Labour Organisation Conventions

Memorial for the Respondents

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Respondents submits its memorial in response to the Public Interest

Litigation, filed by the Petitioner‟s under Article 32 of The Constitution
of Meerastan.

Memorial for the Respondents

 STATEMENT OF FACTS

Economic crisis’s encountered by Meerastan: The Republic of

Meerastan by 2014, started to encounter numerous economic problems,
like low economic growth, weak financial system, volatile capital flows,
infrastructure constraints, rising prices, especially consumer price index,
rising income inequality, high unemployment rates , energy constraints,
stubborn poverty, uncertainty in exchange rates, rising budget deficits and
governance deficit to enumerate a few. With a view to improve their
economy by obtaining more flexibility and removing outdated labour
laws, The Government of Meerastan proposed some changes in itsLabour
Laws to facilitate higher inflow of investment, income ofemployees and
also for the mobilization of resources to the workforce.

Shivrashtra and it’s economic setbacks: The State of Shivrashtra in

Meerastan has also incurred a lot of losses in the manufacture of sugar.
Meerastan, being the second largest manufacturer of sugar in the world,
the contribution of sugar to the total production is crucial to the National
Economy. With the power vested in them under the amended laws like
Factories Act,1948; Apprentices Act,1961; Minimum wages Act,1948;
they increased the spread over time of 15 factories, involved in sugar

Memorial for the Respondents

manufacture, to boost their industrial capacity, salvage their economy and
to restore the momentum, due to the losses incurred.

Worker’s Grievances & Mazdoor Mitra: The spread-over time of all

the employees in the factories were increased from 10hrs to 12hrs a day.
Against this backdrop, an NGO- „MazdoorMitra‟ (hereinafter referred to
as „MM‟);involved inaddressing the grievances of the workers were
alerted on the misuse of the amended laws by the employers. The main
aim of MM was to prevent the working class from getting exploited and
to serve as a via media for the workers from the centre and the Trade
Unions. The State implementation of increase in spread-over time and
other factors were being misused by employers across that class of
factories and industries that came under its purview long after momentum
in production and compensation for losses was obtained. MM
conducted a survey which focused on the implications of the amended
labour laws, with the interest of the workers. The study revealed, there
was widespread exploitation and the amended laws infringed the
fundamental rights of the workers. It further showed that the amended
Acts were in direct contravention of a ratified International Labour
Organisation.

Memorial for the Respondents

Contentions raised: MM filed a Public Interest Litigation before the
Supreme Court, opposing the various provisions that infringe the rights of
the workers by wanton abuse, laid down by the employers. They also
contended that, the position of Labour Laws on the Concurrent List
allowed amendments only to some central statutes, and also to add some
state statutes. Perverse incentives from this arrangement encourage States
government to be lax, to procrastinate, and defer to the Union. On the
contrary, individual states are better at tweaking Labour Laws to balance
flexibility and security. Thus, this position in the concurrent list makes
flexibility in some areas and inflexible in some. Movement of Labour
Laws from the Concurrent List to State List would prevent unilateralism
at national level and also serve to decrease the risks of litigations on
workers.

Memorial for the Respondents

 ISSUES RAISED

I. Whether the Public Interest Litigation filed under Art.32

of The Constitution of India is maintainable?

II. Whether the amendments made by The Republic of

Meerastan are to be struck down?

III. Whether „Labour Laws‟ are better positioned in State

List than in Concurrent List?

Memorial for the Respondents

 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. Whether the Public Interest Litigation filed under Art.32 of The Constitution of
India is maintainable?

I. The Public Interest Litigation filed by MM under Article 32 of The Constitution

is not maintainable.

PIL held, misconceived when relief claimed was not based on any fundamental right.1 The PIL
was not meant to be a weapon to challenge the financial or economic decisions whichare
taken by the Government in exercise of their administrative power. Placing reliance upon the
legal principle enunciated above, the amendments could not be challenged as they were solely
economic decisions.The amendments made in The Labour Laws were to facilitate a business
friendly environment in which there will be higher inflow of investment & incomeof the
employees as well as mobilization of resources to the work force both of which are essential
for the upliftment of its ailing economy.

Thus it is humbly submitted before this Hon‟ble that the amendments were made with an economic
motive it cannot be said to have stand the test of filing a PIL under Art.32 of The Constitution of
India.

II. Whether the amendments made by The Republic of Meerastan are to be

struck down?

The amendments made by The Republic Of Meerastan in Labour Laws are to be upheld.

The state enjoys the widest latitude where measures of economic regulations are concerned.
It is for the state to decide what economic and social policy it should pursue. Lack of perfection
in a legislative measure does not necessarily imply its constitutionality. Every activity of the
Government has a public element in it and it must therefore, be informed with reason and
guided by public interest. Every action taken by the Government must be in public interest;
the Government cannot act arbitrarily and without reason and if it does, its Action would be
liable to be invalidated.
Memorial for the Respondents
Thus it is humbly submitted before this Hon‟ble Court that the amendments made by
The Republic of Meerastan with the aim of boosting its economy are on no grounds to be
struck down.

III. Whether „Labour Laws‟ are better positioned in State List

than in Concurrent List?

.Labour Laws need not be brought into the State List.

The court has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public
grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the executive
and the legislature. There are certain reasons that prompted the makers of the constitution to
incorporate a Concurrent List of subjects. There was a justification for such jurisdiction
because experience had showed that, both in India and elsewhere , that there were certain
matters which could not be allocated exclusively either to the Central or to a State Legislature,
and for which , though it was often desirable that the State Legislature should legislate , it was
equally necessary that the Central Legislature should also have legislative jurisdiction, to
enable it in some cases to secure uniformity in the main principles of law throughout the
country, n others to guide and encourage the state efforts , and in others to again to provide
remedies for mischiefs arising In the state sphere but extending or liable to extend beyond the
boundaries of a single state. Instances of the first are provided by the subject matter of the great
Indian Codes , of the second by such matters as labour legislation and of the third by legislation
for the prevention and control of epidemic disease. On the other hand, local conditions
necessarily varied from the State to State and State Legislature sought to have the power of
adapting general legislation of this kind to meet the particular circumstances of the province.
Thus the entry is best allocated in the Concurrent List than in the State List.

Memorial for the Respondents

 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. Whether the Public Interest Litigation filed under Art.32 of The

Constitution of India is maintainable?

THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION FILES BY MM UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF

THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE.

Article 32 cannot be invoked simply to adjudge the validity of any legislation or administrative
action unless it adversely affects the fundamental rights2. A PIL held, misconceived when relief
claimed was not based on any fundamental right.3

The Apex Court in the case of Balco Employee’s Union v UOI 4conclusively held,“ The PIL was
not meant to be a weapon to challenge the financial or economic decisions which are taken by
the Government in exercise of their administrative power. “Placing reliance upon the legal
principle enunciated above, the amendments made by the Government of Meerastan are part of
their economic policies and were to facilitate a business friendly environment in which there will
be higher inflow of investment & income of the employees as well as mobilization of resources
to the work force both of which are essential for the upliftment of its ailing economy.5 It
becomes evident that MM cannot use PIL as a means to challenge the economic decisions of
Government. the amendments could not be challenged as they were solely economic decisions.
It is futher to be noted that the challenged amendments have been carried out according to a
procedure established by law, thereby leaving no scope for illegality.

The Court further held that no doubt a person personally aggrieved by any such decision, which
he regards as illegal, can impugn the same in a court of law, but, a PIL at the behest of a stranger
ought not to be entertained. Such litigation cannot per se be on behalf of the poor and the

2
ShantaBhaiv State Of MaharashtraAIR1958 SC532
3
KanhaiyaLal Sethia v Union Of India, (1997) 6 SCC573
4
2002 2 SCC333
5
Moot Proposition Para 1. Lines 9-12

Memorial for the Respondents

downtrodden, unless the court is satisfied that there has been violation of Article 21 and the
persons adversely affected are unable to approach the court. Thus, the respondents submit that
unless the petitioners herein prove the existence of violation of Article 21 of the workers, the
petitionerr lacks the locus standi to file PIL. MM does not stand the test of locus standi merely
because of filing the petition on behalf of the workers. Before maintaining a cause before the
court, one should prove that there is concrete and credible basis, notwithstanding the credentials
claimed of the person moving the courts. 6

The SC in the case of State of Uttaranchal v. BalwantSingh,7 has held that the courts should
ensure that the petition that involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given
priority over other petitions.

Applying the above principle to the facts at hand ,it is understood the petition herein does not
involve larger public interest. The issue pertains only to a limited number of workers in a few
factories. Moreover, the amendments are not violative of Article 21. The Government had
enacted them through a procedure established by law.

Regards the maintainability of the PIL the majority view is that the prayers made in it require the
court to giver direction of a legislative or executive nature which can only be given by the
legislature or executive and thus, is not maintainable.8 Thus, it is submitted that the PIL is not
maintainable.

Hence, the respondents hereby submit before this Hon‟ble Court that in the absence of any
fundamental right violation and when the relief claimed is that of legislative nature, the PIL filed
by MM is not maintainable.

6
M.P.Jain
7
2010 AIRSCW 1029; 2010 3 SCC402
8
See : M.C Mehta v UOI1997 8 SCC770; Divl. Manager, Aravali Golf Club v Chander Hass 2008 1 SCC683; P.
Ramachandra Rao v State Of Karnataka2002 4 SCC578; Common Cause, A Registered Society v UOI1996 4
SCC33; Raj DeoSharma v State Of Bihar 1998 7 SCC507; Raj DeoSharma (II) v State Of Bihar 1999 7 SCC604; A.
R. Anutulay v R. S. Nayak; 1988 2 SCC602

Memorial for the Respondents

I. Whether the amendments made by The Republic of Meerastan
are to be struck down?
THE AMENDMENTS MADE BY THE REPUBLIC OF MEERASTAN IN LABOUR
LAWS ARE TO BE UPHELD.

The state enjoys the widest latitude where measures of economic regulations are concerned. It is
for the state to decide what economic and social policy it should pursue. Lack of perfection in a
legislative measure does not necessarily imply its constitutionality. 9 The Republic of Meerastan
with the aim of boosting its economy brought in certain amendments in the Labour laws and on
no grounds they are to be struck down as, the amendments made by the Republic of Meerastan
are in tandem with Article 14 [2.1] and as the amendments do not abridge the fundamental rights
of the workers [2.2]

1.1. The amendments are in tandem with article 14.

There is a presumption of validity of the State action and the burden is on the person who
alleges violation of Article 14 to prove the assertion.10The wide sweep of Article 14 and the
requirement of every State action qualifying for its validity on this touch-stone, irrespective of
the field of activity of the State, has long been settled.11

Every activity of the Government has a public element in it and it must therefore,be informed
with reason and guided by public interest. Every action taken by the Government must be in
public interest; the Government cannot act arbitrarily and without reason and if it does, its Action
would be liable to be invalidated.12 The Republic of Meerastan did not arbitrarily amendment the
Labour Laws. The facts clearly puts forth that the economy of Meerastan by 2014 was in the path
of regression. The amendments were brought with the intention of boosting the economy. Thus,
the state action is clearly guided by public interest and reason, hence negating arbitrariness.

9
Secretary to the Govt: of Madras v P. R. Sriramulu 1996 1 SCC 345para 15
10
S.G. Jaisinghanv Union of India, [1967] 2 SCR 703. (20)
11
In Col. A.S. Sang wan v Union of India and Ors., [1980] Supp. SCC 559,
12
KumariShrilekhaVidyarthi& Others v State Of U.P.And Ors 1991 AIR 537, 1990 SCR Supl. (1) 625

Memorial for the Respondents

Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. It
requires that State action must not be arbitrary but must be based on some rational and relevant
principle which is non discriminatory; it must not be guided by any extraneous or irrelevant
consideration, because that would be denial of equality. 13. State action must be in conformity
with standard or norm which is not arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant.14

Non-arbitrariness, in substance, is only fair play in action. This obvious requirement must be
satisfied by every action of the State or its instrumentality in order to satisfy the test of validity.15

The Central Government action of granting the State Government the right territorial integrity
increase working hours cannot be brought under the term arbitrary as it was a part of economic
policy. Furthermore, it is backed by the reason that it gives the state Government powers to
analyse their economical conditions and act accordingly. The amendments were made bona fide
with the intention of uplifting the economy.

While the discretion to change the policy in exercise of the executive power, when not
trammeled by the statute or rule, was held to be wide, it was emphasised as imperative and
implicit in Article 14 of the Constitution that a change in policy must be made fairly and should
not give the impression that it was so done arbitrarily or by any ulterior criteria Where there is
arbitrariness in State action, Article 14 springs in and judicial review strikes such an action
down. Every action of the executive authority must be subject to rule of law and must be
informed by reason. So, whatever be the activity of the public authority, it should meet the test of
Article 14.16

The state action of amendments herein is not arbitrary and stands the test of fairness. The state
had no mala fide intention and the whole aim of this whole amendments in labour laws were

13
E.P.Royappa v State of Tamil Nadu&Maneka Gandhiv Union of India
14
State Of Punjab v Shri Amar Singh, General (1998) 119 PLR 498

15
M/s Dwarkadas Marlaria and Sons v Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay, [1989] 3 SCC 29

16
. In M/s DwarkadasMarfatia and Sons v Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay,[1989] 3 SCC 293,

Memorial for the Respondents

merely for the development of the National and State economy which was undergoing a period
of regression. The action is fair and not arbitrary.

If State has acted mala fide or out of improper or corrupt motive or in order to promote the
private interests of someone at the cost of the State, the Court will undoubtedly interfere and
strike down State action as arbitrary, unreasonable or contrary to public interest. The state action
did not have any mala fide intention as a mere perusal of the facts put it clearly, which the
respondent brings into the notice of the Hon;ble Court. So long as the State action is bonafide
and reasonable, the Court will not interfere 17

Article 14 lays down an important fundamental right which should be closely and vigilantly
guarded but in construing it, the Court should not adopt a doctrinaire approach which might
choke all beneficial legislation. 18In light of this legal principle, the respondent humbly submits
before this Court that the amendments are in tandem with Article 14.

1.2. The said amendments do not abridge the fundamental rights of the workers.

The right to life and personal liberty protected by article 21 is not an absolute right but is a
qualified right – a right circumscribed by the possibility or risk of being lost according to
procedure established by law.19

Since the Directive Principles of State Policy contained in clauses (e) and (f) of Article 39,Article
41 and 42 are not enforceable in a court of law, it may not be possible to compel the State through
the judicial process to make provision by statutory enactment or executive for ensuring these basic
essentials which g oto make up a life of human dignity.20

17
Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy vState of Jammu And Kashmir &Anr. 1980AIR1992, 1980SCR (3)1338

18
ChiranjitLalChowdhuriv The Union of India and Others1951 AIR41, 1950 SCR 869; Dal Chand And Anr. v The
StateAIR1953 All 123;Welfare Assocn. A.R.P., Maharashtra &Anrv. Ranjit P. Gohil&Ors[2003] Insc 101

19
A. K. Gopalanv State of MadrasAIR 1950 SC 27
20
BandhuaMuktiMorcha v Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161; AIR 1984 SC 802See: Confederation Of Ex-
Servicemen & others v Union Of India & Ors

Memorial for the Respondents

Where an act is arbitrary, it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and
constitutional law and is, therefore, violative of Article 14. This right to live which is
comprehended within the broad connotation of the right to life can concededly be abridged
according to procedure established by law.21

Deprivation of life is constitutionally permissible if that is done according to procedure

established by law.22
III. Whether „Labour Laws‟ are better positioned in State than in
Concurrent List?

LABOUR LAWS NEED NOT BE BROUGHT INTO THE STATE LIST.

The court has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance,
it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the executive and the
legislature.23

In Common Cause v UOI24, the petitioner, by a PIL under Art. 32 sought for a direction by
issue of a writ of mandamus to amend and correct Motor Vehicles Act including setting up of
Road Safety committee and enactment of a Road Traffic Safety Act to minimize road accidents.
The majority view was that such a prayer was not maintainable and pointed out how PIL now-a-
days is being misused.

Hon‟ble Justice, Katju, speaking for the majority held:

“This Writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution furnishes a typical illustration of how
PIL which was conceived and created as a judicial tool by the courts in this country for helping
the poor, weaker and oppressed sections of society, who could not approach the court due to their
poverty, has over the years grown and grown, and now it seems to have gone totally out of

21
Francis Coralie Mullin v The Administrator, Union Territory of India&Ors.1981 AIR 746, 1981 SCR (2) 516

22
JagmohanSingh v The State Of U. P 1973 AIR 947, 1973 SCR (2) 541
23
Ashok Kumar v State of West Bengal (2004) 3 SCC 349
24
(2008)5 SCC 511

Memorial for the Respondents

control and has become something so strange and bizarre that those who had created it probably
would be shocked to know what it has become.”

The respondents draw an analogy from the case cited above , it become clear that the contention
raised by the applicant defeats the purpose of a PIL as such and thus should not be taken into
consideration and the claim asked for is legislative. Furthermore, there is no necessity for the
transfer as State governments are at better position to tweak the labour laws for their benefits.

If there is lacuna or defect in the Act or a provision, it is for the legislature to correct it by a
suitable amendment and not by the court. When the petitioner prays for various directions which
would be legislative in nature, they would amount to amending the Act. That would not be a
legitimate judicial function..25 Thus, it is humbly submitted that the prayer of the appellants is for
a legislative act.

Thus, the respondents humbly submit before this Hon‟ble court that it should not be entertained
as it would not be a legitimate judicial function and it is under the purview of the Parliament.

25
Ibid.

Memorial for the Respondents

 PRAYER

In the light of issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the
counsels for the Respondents humbly pray and implore before this Hon‟ble
Court to kindly adjudge and declare that :

1. The Public Interest Litigation filed by MM under Art.32 of the

Constitution is not maintainable.

2. The amendments made by The Republic Of Meerastan in Labour

Laws should not be struck down.

3. Labour Laws are not positioned better in State List than

Concurrent List.

And may kindly pass any order that this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit.
For this act of kindness, the respondents as shall in duty bound,
forever pray.

Respectfully Submitted
Sd/-
Counsel for the Respondents

Memorial for the Respondents

Memorial for the Respondents