CHANDIGARH: A Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court today declared a Haryana law providing 75% quota in private sector jobs “unconstitutional and violative” of the Constitution of India.
In a major embarrassment for the state, the Bench also declared the Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act, 2020, ultra vires the Constitution of India before making it clear it was “ineffective from the date it came into force”.
In its 83-page judgment, the Bench of Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia and Justice Harpreet Kaur Jeewan was of the opinion that the state overstepped its authority by legislating on private employment. It was beyond the state’s purview to legislate on the issue and restrict the private employer from recruiting people from the open market for the category of employees receiving less than Rs 30,000 per month.
The Bench also made it clear there was a bar mandated under the Constitution regarding discrimination to citizens of the country relating to employment on the basis of their places of birth and residence, and to make them ineligible or discriminated against in respect of the employment to the state.
The Bench underscored the principle of laissez-faire by asserting: “The state cannot direct the private employers to do what has been forbidden to do under the Constitution. It cannot, as such, discriminate against the individuals on account of the fact that they do not belong to a certain state and have a negative discrimination against other citizens of the country… It is not for the state to direct the private employer whom it has to employ keeping in view the principles of laissez-faire that ‘the lesser it governs, the better itself’.”
The Bench also ruled the restrictions imposed in the statute had a far-reaching effect and could not be held to be reasonable in any manner. Referring further to the bar under the Constitution, the Bench added it did not see any reason how the state could force a private employer to employ a local candidate as it would lead to a large-scale “similar state enactments, providing similar protection for their residents and putting up artificial walls throughout the country, which the framers of the Constitution had never envisaged”.
The court stated the Act couldn’t be said to be reasonable in any manner as it was directing employers to violate constitutional provisions
Restrictions imposed upon private employers are gross to extent that a person’s right to carry on occupation, trade or business is grossly impaired under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, the court observed.
It also ruled that the need for an employee, being paid less than Rs 30,000 per month, to register within 3 months on designated portal was violative of fundamental rights. Besides, requirement of submitting quarterly reports and power of authorised officer to call for records and inspect premises by giving a day’s prior notice can be termed “Inspector Raj”. The court also said a private employer had been ‘put under the anvil of the state’ as to whom to employ. The bar on challenging legal proceedings in any court against an authorised officer further ties employer’s hands, it mentioned.