The Punjab and Haryana High Court, which stayed the Haryana government’s law of 75 per cent reservation in private sector for residents of state, has said that “the core issue is whether any state can restrict employment (even in the pivate sector) on the basis of domicile”.
The matter, which is being heard by the division Bench of Justices Ajay Tewari and Pankaj Jain, stayed the state’s law of 75 per cent reservation on Thursday. But a detailed order was released on the High Court website on Friday.
The Faridabad Industries Association and other associations from the state have sought interim relief from the HC.
A petitioner in the case, Gurgaon Industrial Association, contended that Haryana wanted to create reservation in private sector by introducing policy of “sons of the soil”, which was an infringement of the constitutional rights of the employers. It was also argued that private sector jobs were purely based on the skills and analytical blend of mind of the employees who were citizens of India having constitutional rights on the basis of their education to do jobs in any part of India. “The act of the respondent forcing the employers to employ local candidates in private sector vide this Bill impugned Act is the violation of the federal structure…the government cannot act contrary to public interest and cannot benefit one class,” it was argued in the petition.
On the question of stay, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta conceded that the writ petitions involve substantial questions but opposed the prayer for interim relief.
Mehta pointed out three factors which would have a material bearing. First, there is always a presumption of constitutionality of a statutory provision and though the writ court has ample jurisdiction to ultimately hold that a statutory provision is unconstitutional, yet interim orders should not be granted. Secondly, there is an insinuation that this law would affect even existing employees which is incorrect. The law is prospective and it saves all the existing staft, and the third argument was that about 38,000 registered domicile workers and about 900 establishments have registered under this Act and this itself shows that it is only a handful of people who are opposed to the implementation of the Act.
After hearing the submissions by the petitioner’s and state counsel, the Bench held, “We have considered these arguments but the core issue is whether any state can restrict employment (even in the private sector) on the basis of domicile.”
“In these circumstances, we are constrained to stay the implementation of Act,” ordered the Bench.