- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5092 WP No. 12194 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 12194 OF 2014 (L-RES) BETWEEN: 1. M/S INDIAN DRUG MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, 102-B, POONAM CHAMBERS, A WING DR ANNIE BESANT ROAD, WORLI, MUMBAI-400018. 2. MICRO LABS LIMITED, #27, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560001,REPRESENTED BY ITS SR.VICE PRESIDENT-HR MR SHIVAJI KAPADE. 3. USV LTD., BSD MARG, STATION ROAD, GOVANDI, MUMBAI-400088, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT-HR MR RAMESH BALGI. 4. GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., CORPORATED ENCLAVE, B D SAWANTMARG, CHAKALA, ANDHERI(EAST), MUMBAI-400099, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT HR MR VINOD SHETTY. 5. M/S LUPIN LIMITED, NO.159, CST ROAD, KALINA, SANTACRUZ EAST, MUMBAI-400098,REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, MR C SRINIVASULU. Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5092 WP No. 12194 of 2014 6. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD., 48, KANDIVLI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, KANDIVLI(WEST), MUMBAI-400067, REPRESENTED BY ITS JOINT MANAGING DIRECTOR MR A K JAIN. 7. FDC LIMITED, 142-48, S V ROAD, JOGESHWARI WEST, MUMBAI-400102, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER P & I R J B NAIK. 8. ALEMBIC PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, ALEMBIC ROAD, VADODARA-390003, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER-HR MR SHETTY. 9. ALKEM LABORATORIES LIMITED, ALKEM HOUSE, "DEVASHISH", SENAPATIBAPAT MARG, LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI-400013, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR PANDE. 10. SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LIMITED, ACME PLAZA, ANDHERIKURLA ROAD, ANDHERI(EAST), MUMBAI-400059, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, MR T B SHAH. 11. BIOLOGICAL E LIMITED, 18/1 & 3, AZAMABAD, HYDERABAD-500020, REPRESENTED BY ITS SR. GENERAL MANAGER-HR MR N ANAND PRASAD. 12. AJANTA PHARMA LIMITED, AJANTA HOUSE, 98, GOVT INDUSTRIAL AREA, CHARKOP, KANDIVLI(W), MUMBAI-400067, REPRESENTED BY ITS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5092 WP No. 12194 of 2014 SR. GENERAL MANAGER-HR,MR THAMPY JACOB. 13. UNICHEM LABORATORIES LIMITED, REGD. & CORPORATE OFFICE, UNICHEM BHAVAN, PRABHAT ESTATE S V ROAD, JOGESHWARI(WEST), MUMBAI-400102, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT-HR & ER MR PRASAD JOSHI. 14. M/S AKUMENTIS HEALTHCARE LTD., NO.504, 5TH FLOOR, G-CORP, TACH PARK, NEAR HYPERCITY, G B ROAD, KASARVADAVALI, THANE(W)-400615, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. 15. WOCKHARDT LIMITED, WOCKHARDT TOWERS, BANDRA-KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA, MUMBAI-40051, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT-HR & ER MR MAHENDRA BANGAR. 16. CADILA HEALTHCARE LIMITED, ZYDYS TOWER, SATELLITE CROSS ROADS, AHMEDABAD-380015, REPRESENTED BY ITS SR GM-HR, MR ANAND GAWDE. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI B C PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR, VIKAS SOUDHA, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR "KARMIKA BHAVAN", ITI COMPOUND, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5092 WP No. 12194 of 2014 BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-560029. 3. KARNATAKA STATE MEDICAL AND SALES REPRESENTATIVE ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, 8/3, 2ND CROSS, BEHIND SHARADHA VILAS COLLEGE, K.R.VANAM, MYSORE - 570008. 4. KARNATAKA STATE MEDICAL AND SALES REPRESENTATIVES ASSOCIATION A REGISTERED TRADE UNION, REGD. UNDER THE TRADE UNION ACT, 1926, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, HAVING ITS OPERATIONAL OFFICE AT FLAT NO.101, VASUNDARA HEIGHTS, SY NO.34/2 AND 34/7, VIDHANA SOUDHA LAYOUT, NAGARABHAVI 23RD STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 072. (CAUSE TITLE AMENDED AS PER ORDER DATED: 10.01.2023) …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT RASHMI RAO, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2, SRI T NARAYANASWAMY, ADV. FOR R3, SRI L MURALIDHAR PESHWA, ADV. FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS LEADING TO THE ISSUE OF NOTIFICATION DATED 21.10.2013 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANN-ADECLARE AND STRIKE DOWN THE NOTIFICATION DATED 21.10.2013 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANN-A AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ULTRA VIRES OF ARTICLE 14 AND 19[1] OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL OF INDIA AND ALSO CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF SPE [C & S] ACT 1976 AND RULES MADE THERE UNDER IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5092 WP No. 12194 of 2014 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER In exercise of power under Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976 (for short 'Act, 1976') read with Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for short the 'Act', 1948) respondent No.2 has issued Notification prescribing working hours for the Sales Promotion Employees. As can be seen from the said Notification, different working hours for certain category of employees have been prescribed for different districts. Broadly speaking working hours would commence at 9.00 am and end at 5.00 pm for few districts and commences at 10.00 am and ends at 6.00 p.m. in few districts and commences at 8.00 am and ends at 4.00 pm in few other districts. It is also noticed that in one district, the working hours starts at 11.00 am and ends at 7.00 pm. This petition is filed on the premise that 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction under law to issue the said Notification. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5092 WP No. 12194 of 2014 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 as well as the learned counsel appearing for respondents No.3 and 4. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the provisions of the Act, 1976 do not enable 2nd respondent to issue the Notification which is challenged before this Court. It is also his further submission that even under Sub-section (3) of Section 6 and Section 13 of the Act, 1948, the authority does not get the jurisdiction to issue the Notification. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 would contend that the working hours are not prescribed for workers who are the members of 4th respondent - Union, though they are coming under the scheduled employment. The State is under obligation to prescribe minimum and maximum number of working hours to avoid exploitation. It is also his contention that under Article 43 of Constitution of India, the State Government is under obligation to frame - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5092 WP No. 12194 of 2014 laws for the welfare of the employees and since the employers were exploiting the situation, 2nd respondent has come to the rescue of the employees from being exploited. 5. It is also his further submission that the Notification provides a ceiling on the maximum number of working hours in a day and the same is permissible under law. 6. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 would also contend that the Notification is within the four corners of law. Sub- section (3) of Section 6 of Act, 1976 read with Section 13 of the Act, 1948 enables 2nd respondent to issue the Notification. 7. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 8. Section 6(3) of the Act, 1976 reads as under: 6.Application of certain Acts to sales promotion employees: 1. xxx - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:5092 WP No. 12194 of 2014 2. xxx (3) The provisions of the Minimum Wages Act 1948 (11 of 1948), as in force for the time being, shall apply to, or in relation to, sales promotion employees as they apply to, or in relation to, employees within the meaning of that Act." 9. On a reading of the said provision, it is apparent that the provisions of the Act, 1948 does apply to the Sales Promotion Employees in relation to matters covered under the Act, 1948. Section 13 of the Act, 1948 reads as under: "13. Fixing hours for a normal working day, etc. - (1) In regard to any scheduled employment minimum rates of wages in respect of which have been fixed under this Act, the appropriate Government may - (a) fix the number of hours of work which shall constitute a normal working day, inclusive of one or more specified intervals; (b) provide for a day of rest in every period of seven days which shall be allowed to all employees or to any specified class of employees and for the payment of remuneration in respect of such days of rest; (c) provide for payment for work on a day of rest at a rate not less than the overtime rate. (emphasis supplied) - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:5092 WP No. 12194 of 2014 (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall, in relation to the following classes of employees, apply only to such extent and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed: - (a) employees engaged on urgent work, or in any emergency which could not have been foreseen or prevented; (b) employees engaged in work in the nature of preparatory or complementary work which must necessarily be carried on outside the limits laid down for the general working in the employment concerned; (c) employees whose employment is essentially intermittent; (d) employees engaged-in any work which for technical reasons has to be completed before the duty is over; (e) employees engaged in a work which could not be carried on except at times dependent on the irregular action of natural forces. (3) For the purposes of clause (c) of sub-section (2), employment of an employee is essentially intermittent when it is declared to be so by the appropriate Government on the ground that the daily hours of duty of the employee, or if there be no daily hours of duty as such for the employee, the hours of duty, normally include periods of inaction during which the employee may be on duty but is not called upon to display either physical activity or sustained attention." 10. On a reading of Section 13(1)(a) of the Act, 1948, it is very much evident that the appropriate - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:5092 WP No. 12194 of 2014 Government may fix the number of hours of working which shall constitute a normal working day inclusive of one more specific interval. Thus, on a reading of the entire provision, it is evident that the appropriate State Government has the power to fix the normal working hours but it has no power to fix the commencement of the working hours. This question also came up for consideration before the Patna High Court in M/S.INDIAN DRUG MANUFACTURERS vs THE GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9237/2017. The Division Bench of the Patna High Court has taken a view that the Government has no power to fix the commencement of the working hours and ending of working hours. It is also clear from the reading of Section 13(1)(a) of the Act, 1948. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is justified in contending that the Notification is without jurisdiction. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents would contend that inaction on the part of the appropriate Government in not fixing the working hours leads to exploitation. This order quashing the Notification at Annexure - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:5092 WP No. 12194 of 2014 - A does not come in the way of respondent No.4 in making representation to the appropriate Government to fix the working hours if it is provided in law. 12. Accordingly, Writ Petition is Allowed and Notification dated 21.10.2013 is quashed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21