17 Nov 2023 11:47 AM GMT
The Punjab & Haryana High Court today, has declared the 75% domicile reservation for locals in Haryana in the private sector jobs having a monthly salary of less than Rs 30,000 as "unconstitutional."
The bench of Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Harpreet Kaur Jeewan said that the "law (the Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act, 2020) is unconstitutional and violative of the part-III of the Constutition."
While allowing the batch of petitions challenging the law providing 75% reservations to the locals, the Court has set aside the Act. The Court decided on four issues, which are as follows:
I. Whether the Writ Petitions are maintainable.
II. Whether the State has legislative competence to pass the Impugned Act in light of Article 35 read with Entry 81 of List 1 of the Seventh Schedule.
III. Whether the State can implement reservation policy in the private sphere.
IV. Whether the Act amounts to a reasonable restriction.
All the four issues were held in favour of the petitioners.
#BREAKING State cannot discriminate against individuals because they belong to some other States.
Private employers can't be forced to employ persons from a particular state - Punjab & Haryana High Court while striking down #Haryana's 75% domicile quota in pvt sector. pic.twitter.com/bj4IJnJRej
Background
The Act was introduced in the State Assembly in 2020, with the background, "The influx of a large number of migrants competing for low- paid jobs places a significant impact on local infrastructure and housing and leads to proliferation of slums, which leads to environmental and health issues. Therefore, giving preference to local candidates in low-paid jobs is socially, economically and environmentally desirable and in the interests of the general public."
One of the petitioners challenging the Act, Faridabad Industries Association, contended that the Act purports to "effectively provide for reservation in private employment and represents an unprecedented intrusion by the government into the fundamental rights of private employers to carry out their business and trade, as provided under Article 19 and the restrictions being places upon such a right are not reasonable but are arbitrary, capricious, excessive and uncalled for."
It was argued that the Act is also contrary to the principles of justice, equality, liberty, and fraternity laid down in the Preamble of the Constitution. Further, the Act is contrary to the right to equality enshrined in Article 14 and Article 19 of the Constitution.
"The Act also represents a serious assault on the unity and integrity of the country and the idea of a common Indian identity. The Act would create a fundamental wedge between persons domiciled in different states, and is contrary to the concept of common citizenship provided in the Constitution," added the plea.
The order was reserved on October 19 and listed for pronouncement for today.
Earlier, the High Court had stayed the operation of the Act in 2022. The stay was set aside by the Supreme Court on an appeal by the High Court. The Supreme Court also requested the High Court to decide the matter expeditiously and ordered that the private employers will be protected from any coercive action under the legislation till the final outcome of the case.
Senior Advocate Akshay Bhan, with Advocates Rohit Nagpal, Hiresh Choudhary, Surbhi Sharma, Ivan Singh Khosa, Shivam Grover, Akhilesh Barak appeared for the petitioner in CWP-24967-2021. Advocate Jeetender Gupta appeared for the petitioner in CWP No. 3860 of 2022. Sr. Advocate Anupam Gupta, with Advocates Tushar Sharma, Gautam Pathania, Sukhpal Singh, Shekhran Singh Virk appeared for the petitioner in CWP-26573-2021 & CWP-1698-2022. Advocate G. S. Bhanda appeared for the petitioner in (CWP-584-2022). Advocate Reena Choudhary and Advocate Vishal Sharma appeared for the petitioner in CWP-25037-2021 & 25539-2021. Addl. AG Jagbir Malik appeared for the state of Haryana.
For detailed story about the reasoning in the judgment, refer this report.
Case Title : IMT Industrial Association and another v. State of Haryana and connected cases.
Click here to read the judgment