Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
This Act is a beneficient legislation which must be liberally construed. Badri Pd. Gupta v. State of Bihar, 1968 PLJR 246 (FB) : 1986 BRLJ 63 : AIR 1986 Pat. 186. This Act is not ultravires. Jugal Kishore Bhadani v. Labour Commissioner, 1958 BLJR 223 : 1958 PLP 93 : 1958 (2) LLJ 234. The Shops Act is complimentary to Industrial Disputes Act. It does not exclude the applicability of any other Act. Delhi Consumer Co-op. Wholesale Store Ltd. v. Secretary (Labour), 1983 Lab. IC 1652. Where there is repugnancy between State Shops and Establishments Act and the (Central) Industrial Disputes Act, the State Act will be excluded to the extent it is repugnant to the Central Act. However, where no repugnancy between the two Acts is found, provisions of both Acts will apply and whatever was more beneficial to the employees would be applicable. National Engineering Industries Ltd. v. Kishan Bhageria, 1988 (2) SLJ 23. Courts should make efforts to reconcile the two laws, in case of repugnancy between State and Central Laws, rather than declare one ultravires merely on the ground of repugnancy. Raptakos, Brett & Company Ltd. v. Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board, 1988 PLJR 830. Laws imposing taxes can amount to restrictions on trade, commerce and inter-State intercouse, if their imposition hampers the free flow of trade and these are not what can be termed to be compensatory taxes or regulatory measures. West Bengal Hosiery Association v. State of Bihar, 1988 PLJR (SC) 96 : 1988 BRLJ 119. An administrative order which is against rules or provisions of Statute creates no vested right. S.K. Chakraborthy v. Union of India, 1989 (1) SLJ 106. The provsions of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act do not apply to the Bihar State Marketing Board and Market Committees established under the Bihar Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1960, as these are not engaged in any commercial activity as such and their dominant purpose is only to render services of an entirely different kind. Earning of profit or profit earning motive is not even the remote intention for their creation. Bihar State Marketing Board v. Chief Inspecting Officer, 1986 BLJR 100. The Bihar Shops and Establishments Act has been enacted for the benefit of employees working in shops and establishments coming within the ambit of the provisions of the Act. The Court is entitled to “Tear the veil” to see whether there has been any abuse of the provisions of this Act or if any exploitation of labour employed in a shop or an establishment had occured. Tata Robins Fraser Co. Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, 1989 PLJR 1153 : 1989 BLJR 555. 2 | Bihar Shops & Establishments Act, 1953 | Sec. 1 Sec. 1 | Bihar Shops & Establishments Act, 1953 | 3 The Bihar Shops and Establishments Act has been enacted not only in terms of Entry Nos. 22, 23 and 24 of List III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution but also under Entry No. 26 of List II of the Seventh Schedule. Therefore, the expression “business” for the purposes of this Act has to be read as synonymous to “trade”. An activity which is extra commercial cannot be said to be a “business” in the context of such a Statute. Beldih Club v. Presiding Officer, 1991 (1) PLJR 81 : 1990 (2) BLJR 808. Legislature is competent to give retrospective operation to a statute. Courts, however, will not ascribe retrospectivity to new legislation affecting existing rights of citizens unless by express words or necessary implication it is manifest that the Legislature intended that the new laws be given retrospective effect. State Bank of India v. State of Bihar, 1990 (2) PLJR