RAMANUJAM, J.


In these batches of writ petitions, the petitioners, who are manufacturers of matches, have, in the main, prayed for the issue of a writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondents 1 and 3, namely, the Superintendent of Central Excise, and the Union of India, Ministry of Finance, respectively, from collecting excise duty in excess of Rs. 4.50 p. or Rs. 1.60 p. per gross of 50 matches, as the case may be, from the petitioners in respect of matches cleared for home consumption packed in boxes in which either outer slide or inner slide or both are made of cardboard without reference to the Notification 137 of 1981 and 140 of 1981, both dated 2-7-1981.


2.Indigenous manufacture of matches in India was started in 1910 by a few Japanese families who had settled in Calcutta. But it could not survive the competition from imports. In 1922, the import duty was doubled to the level of Rs. 1.50p per gross. Soon after, a number of small factories were established all over the country. The Swedish Match Company Limited, whose associates had then a near International monopoly in matches and which had been importing practically the country's entire requirements from its parent concern in Sweden setup the Western India Match Company Limited (WIMCO) with factories all over India. Another company, namely, ASSAM MATCH COMPANY was also established in 1926 with its factory at Dhurbi (Assam). The claim of the match industry for protection was considered by the Tariff Board during 1926-28 and protection was granted in 1928 for an indefinite period. The import duty of Rs. 1.50 per gross was converted into a protective duty. With this protection, a large number of medium sized factories manufacturing matches mostly by manual labour came into being. A particularly large concentration grew in and around the towns of Sivakasi, Sattur and Kovilpatti in Tamilnadu.


3.Excise duty was levied on matches for the first time in 1934. Up to 1948-49, match factories were classified for purposes of excise into two types, viz., factories producing not more than 100 gross boxes per day and the rest with a higher output. It was then found that such classification put the medium-sized factories at a disadvantage as they came within the higher category and had to pay duty at the full rate. With duty at this rate, they could not compete with the fully mechanised big factories. Hence, a second preferential category was introduced comprising factories whose output did not exceed 5 lakhs gross boxes per year, but exceeded 100 gross boxes per day. Subsequently, representation was made to Government for enlarging the scope of preferential excise tariff for cottage match factories. Need was felt for giving encouragement to cottage/small units in view of their employment potential in rural areas. Accordingly, in 1954, a new class of factories, with production not exceeding 25 gross boxes per day, was created and a very substantial rebate in duty was allowed to them. The total number of units in 1955-56 categorised as A, B, C and D on the basis of the output was estimated by the Planning Commission at 234 (8 in 'A' Class, 103 in 'B' Class 81 in 'C' Class and 42 in 'D' Class). The aggregate capacity was estimated at 35.3 million gross boxes of 60 sticks and the actual production that year was 34.1 million gross boxes. By a gentleman's agreement, production of WIMCO was restricted to about 50 per cent of the country's total demand. As of 31-3-1978, a total number of match factories was a little over 3,300.


4.As of now, units producing matches are classified broadly under two categories, viz., the power-operated or mechanised units and the non-power operated ones. The non-power operated sector may be divided further into two categories viz., 'cottage' and 'other than cottage', depending on their output. Those producing not more than 75 million matches per year and recommended by KVIC or a cooperative society are categorised as 'cottage'/'tiny'. It may be noted that, broadly speaking, manufacture of matches involves the following processes :(i)Making of veneers;


(ii)Making of splints;


(iii)Dipping;


(iv)Box making


(vi)Pasting of labels and banderolls, and


(vii)Packing


Except for making veneers and splints, in manufacturing matches, the use of machines is not indispensable. For the purpose of levy of central excise duty, a unit is deemed to be non-mechanised and thus eligible for concessional rates, if it does not use power in two processes, namely, dipping of splints in the composition for match heads and for filling of boxes with matches. As a result, the non-mechanised units can employ machines for (i) making boxes (ii) filling up the frames with splints, (iii) side painting, (iv) grinding match composition, and (v) affixing labels and banderolls to the match boxes without losing the excise duty concession.


5.The petitioners herein are manufacturers of matches. In respect of manufacture of matches, as and from 1-8-1981, three notifications bearing notification Nos. 40/81, 41/81 and 42/81, all dated 1-3-1981 had been issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, in exercise of their powers conferred under sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Though the tariff rate in respect of matches was Rs. 10-40 p per gross for box of 50 matches each, the said three notifications fixed three different effective rates of excise duty depending upon the nature of the manufacturing unit. As regards units which manufactured matches with the aid of power, they were classified as mechanised and an effective rate of Rs. 7.20 p per gross was levied under Notification No. 40 of 1981. In so far as the units where some of the processes of manufacturing matches were carried on with the aid of power, the same was treated as semi-mechanised category and an effective rate of Rs. 5-50p per gross was levied under Notification No. 41 of 1981. The said notification also provided an exemption of Rs. 0-60 paise being granted from the said effective rate of Rs. 5-50p in case cardboard is used for both inner and outer slides and Rs. 0-34 paise if cardboard is used for inner slide alone. In respect of the non-mechanised sector which may be taken as a middle sector, that is, where no power is used for any of the processes, an effective rate of Rs. 4-50p has been fixed under notification No. 42 of 1981 which has also provided for an exemption of Rs. 0.60 paise where cardboard is used both for inner and outer slides and 0-21 paise where cardboard is used for inner slide alone. In respect of cottage units, whose production of matches did not exceed a particular limit, the effective rate of excise duty was fixed at Rs. 1-60p as per Notification No. 99 of 1980 dated 19th June, 1980 which had been later amended by Notification No. 22 of 1982 dated 23rd February, 1982. Thus, while there was no reduction from the effective rate of excise duty in respect of mechanised units, there was reduction from the effective rate of excise duty for the user of cardboard for match boxes both for outer and inner slides at Rs. 0-60 paise and for inner slide alone at Rs. 0-24 paise. Representations had been made that the user of cardboard for outer slide of the matchbox should also get some reduction in the excise duty. Some of the manufacturers had challenged the Notification No. 41 of 1981 on the ground that it did not provide for reduction in effective excise duty in respect of user of cardboard for outer slide alone. However, those writ petitions had been dismissed and the matter was taken to the Supreme Court. While that matter was pending before the Supreme Court, the Government issued Notification No. 137 of 1981 with effect from 1st October, 1981 fixing the rate of duty, if the matches had been packed in cardboard boxes, either wholly or partly as under :S.No. Description of matches Rate of duty Rs. per gross of boxes of 50 matches each

1 2 3

1. Matches packed in boxes in which the outer slide alone is made of cardboard 5-50

2. Matches packed in boxes in which the inner slide alone is made of cardboard 5-26

3. Matches packed in boxes in which both the outer slide as well as inner slide are made of cardboard 4-90



In the Notification No. 22 of 1982, dated 23-2-1982, fixing the effective rate of excise duty in non-mechanised cottage units was at Rs. 1-60p per gross, the second proviso provided that the exemption contained in the notification shall not apply to matches packed in boxes in which the outer slide or the inner slide, or both are made of cardboard. The explanation to that notification also provided that the following processes unless carried on mechanically, they shall not be deemed to be a process ordinarily carried on with the aid of power.


6.By a further Notification 97 of 1982, dated 23-2-1982, certain amendments were carried out to the earlier Notification No. 137 of 1981, dated 2nd July, 1981 and Notification No. 40 of 1981, dated 1st March, 1981, Notification No. 28 of 1982, dated 23rd February, 1982. The amendment brought into Notification No. 40 of 1981 introduced the following clause 3 in the proviso.



"(iii) in the case of matches packed in boxes in which the outer slide alone is made of cardboard, the amount of exemption shall be increased by 36 paise per gross boxes" *


.


By bringing amendment to the Notification No. 137 of 1981, as against serial No. 1 in column (3), for the figures "5.50", the figures "5.14" was substituted. The amendment to Notification No. 22 of 1982 introduced the following third proviso before the explanation: -



"Provided also that the exemption contained in this notification shall not apply to the said matches where a manufacturer uses any other manufacturer's label which is approved by the proper officer for matches packed in boxes attracting higher rate of duty than the rate of duty specified in this notification." *


It is in the light of the above notifications, the contentions urged by the petitioners in all these cases have to be considered.


7.According to the petitioners, till some time past in the match industry, soft wood was used for manufacture of match sticks and veneer was used for the manufacture of both inner and outer slides of boxes. Thus, for the manufacture of match boxes, timber was necessary and this resulted in the destruction of forests. Therefore, the Agricultural Department of the Government of India recommended to the Union of India to give incentive for the use of substitute raw material like cardboard instead of veneer in the manufacture of boxes and bamboo instead of soft wood in the manufacture of sticks. Taking note of this recommendations, the Government of India provided concessional rate of excise duty for the manufacture of matches if matches are packed in cardboard boxes instead of boxes made of veneer. Likewise, the Union of India gave exemption to the manufacturers of matches in the mechanised sector like WIMCO from the usual rate of duty if cardboard boxes are used for packing matches. This has resulted in the various notifications referred to above giving concession in the excise duty levied on the match manufacturers, depending upon the use of cardboard for the manufacture of boxes either for inner slide or outer slide or for both. Similarly, additional excise duty exemption was granted to match manufacturers if they used bamboo for manufacture of sticks instead of soft wood. But, we are not concerned with that aspect of the case, for, all the cases before us deal with the question of withdrawal of exemption based on the use of cardboard for manufacture of match boxes in certain contingencies. Later, the Government of India had appointed an Expert Committee on Tax Measures to promote more employment and that Committee found that the exemptions granted or the revenue foregone has not resulted in the additional employment of labour, and that some of the match manufacturing units, particularly medium category, to whom the concessions had been shown in the levy of excise duty, are using power operated machines for a number of processes which were quite labour-intensive, with consequent displacement of labour, such as frame-filling, that is to say, arranging splints in rectangular wooden frames for dipping in the composition for match heads. Labour displacement from the use of power in this process is as high as 10:1. Thus, the user of power-operated machines had resulted in reducing the labour strength to 1/10. Similar labour displacement was also found to take place though not to the same extent in the other process, in box making and labelling, and that therefore, there is justification in continuing the concession for the manufacture of matches in the non-mechanised in the non-use of the power not only in dipping and box-filling but also in other processes. Thus, the Expert Committee suggested the concession in the excise duty being granted only to the labour intensive units. Taking note of the recommendations of the said Expert Committee no tax measures and to promote additional employment, the Government have chosen to give up their earlier policy of giving concessions in the rates of excise duty to those match manufacturers who use card-board for the manufacture of boxes, if they happen to adopt mechanical process resulting in the displacement of labour or reduction of the labour force. It is based on this revised policy, the second respondent has chosen to issue the impugned Notification Nos. 137 of 1981 and 140 of 1981, dated 2-7-1981, amending Notification 41 of 1981 dated 1st March, 1981, and adding two more processes to the existing six processes mention in Notification No. 140 of 1981 and the two processes added are (1) the process of giving the veneer flats or strips, the configuration of a match box including the outer slide or the inner slide with the use of match paper, and (2) the process of affixing labels, by pasting or any other means, on match boxes or veneers. Thus, the result of notification No. 140 of 1981, dated 2-7-1981 amending the earlier Notification No. 41 of 1981, dated 1-3-1981 is that those manufacturers who use the mechanical process for giving the veneer flats or strips, the configuration of a match box including the outer slide or the inner slide or the process of affixing labels, by pasting or any other means, on match boxes or veneers will not be entitled to the benefit of the concessional rate of excise duty which was available to them for the use of cardboard for the manufacture of match boxes either for outer slide or for inner slide. From what has been stated above, it is seen that the earlier policy of the Government was to grant partial exemption from excise duty if the match manufacturers used cardboard for the manufacture of match box, instead of veneer. According to the revised policy, the match manufacturers will be entitled to get such an exemption based on the user of cardboard in the manufacture of match boxes only if they do not adopt a mechanical process in the manufacture of boxes or in the process of affixing labels by pasting or otherwise on match boxes. In these cases, it is not in dispute that all the petitioners herein are using cardboards which are already printed with the labels for the manufacture of match boxes. Thus, as the petitioners are using cardboard in which labels have been printed already, the respondents have taken the view that they are not entitled to the duty concession based on the user of cardboard for the manufacture of match boxes, and they have begun demanding excise duty at the effective rate and not at the concessional rate which will be available to them as per Notification No. 43 of 1981 before its amendment. Aggrieved by the amendment brought into notification No. 41 of 1981 by notification No. 140 of 1981 which exposes them to a higher excise duty, the petitioners have come before this court.


8.According to the petitioners, the changes made by the impugned notifications are arbitrary and irrational and bear no nexus to the object sought to be achieved, for the following reasons. (1) If it is necessary to preserve the difference and the differential tariff between semi-mechanised and non-mechanised so far as veneer boxes are concerned, there is no reason to abolish the difference and the differential tariff in the case of user of cardboard boxes. (2) Non-mechanised units are traditionally a distinct class. Non-mechanised units packing in cardboard boxes cannot be treated alike with semi-mechanised units packing in cardboard boxes, and so, unequals cannot be treated alike. (3) In the case of a semi-mechanised unit using power of dipping alone, so far as box-making is concerned, the said unit is similarly placed as a non-mechanised unit, since both make boxes by manual labour. When the semi-mechanised unit shifts from veneer box to cardboard box, it gets the concession. But when the non-mechanised unit shifts from veneer box to cardboard box, it is penalised. (4) Each one of the three objects is directly frustrated; particularly, the second object is defeated because of the non-mechanised unit packing in cardboard boxes is penalised, the unit will be encouraged to shift to semi-mechanised production and take advantage of the power and technology. (5) The third object is also defeated. 75% of the total production is in the non-mechanised sector. Yet this sector cannot use cardboard as substitute for veneer. Far from there being conservation of scarce timber, there will be a greater demand upon scarce timber. In this connection, it may be noted that future growth is reserved for the non-mechanised sector. (6) The policy seems to be to give the advantage of using cardboard to the mechanised sector alone. This is indirectly creating a monopoly in favour of the mechanised sector. Since cardboard cannot be used and since timber is scarce, the non-mechanised units will gradually be driven out of existence. (7) The plea of displacement of labour set out in the counter affidavits is not only spacious, but is factually incorrect. The statement is not based on any study or enquiry or report. There is the same alleged displacement of labour when a semi-mechanised unit engaged in manual box making shifts from veneer box to cardboard box. But that unit is not penalised. There is no reason to penalise the non-mechanised unit alone when it shifts from veneer box to cardboard box. The internal evidence in Notification No. 137 of 1981 is totally opposed to this plea. The rate structure contained in Notification No. 137 of 1981 is to encourage the use of more cardboard. Some of the petitioners before us are cottage or tiny units which are governed by the Notification No. 99 of 1980, dated 19th June, 1980, which provided for an effective duty of Rs. 1.60 p per gross boxes of 50 matches each provided those units use cardboard in the manufacture of match boxes. That notification was also amended by notification No. 137 of 1981, dated 2-7-1981 which introduced a fifth proviso wherein the benefit of concessional rate of tax was not made available if those cottage and tiny units adopt a mechanical process either in the manufacture of box or in the affixing of labels. Similarly, the result was, those cottage and tiny units which used cardboards in which labels had already been printed were not allowed the benefit of the concessional rate of duty based on the user of cardboard for the manufacture of boxes. The said notification has also been questioned by the concerned petitioners on the same grounds as have been raised by the medium units.


9.The further submissions made by the petitioners are as follows --- The match manufacturing units having been regarded as separate category, the respondent cannot treat them equally in the matter of levy of excise duty and this will amount to unequals being treated equally which will be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, that even if the Government can be taken to have adopted a new policy based on the theory of displacement of labour, so long as there is no classification of match manufacturing units in accordance with the said policy, the impugned notifications cannot be held to be valid, that in respect of match manufacturing units, the existing classification in the manufacturing units based on the user of veneer should continue even as regards the manufacture of match boxes with cardboard, and there is no reason given by the respondents either in the counter affidavit or otherwise for making a different classification, that even in the Notification No. 137 of 1981, some pattern or classification has been adopted even though that notification was based on the report of the Expert Committee on Tax Measures to promote employment, which was given in January, 1980 which was passed on the basis of user of veneer for the manufacture of match boxes. The present classification of units based on the processes used by them has no nexus with the object, when compared with the manufacture of match boxes by using cardboard instead of veneer, the labour employed in both the cases are substantially the same and there is no question of displacing labour in the manufacture of matches by using cardboard, and therefore the impugned notifications have to fail for violation of Art. 14.


10.The learned Counsel for the respondents brought to our notice that more or less similar contentions were urged before this court in writ petition No. 10045 of 1981 and a Division Bench of this court by its judgment dated 3-3-1982, has rejected these contentions and sustained the validity of the impugned notification and that judgment is reported inJayaprakash Match Works, Kovilpatti and Othersv.Union of India and Others and it is therefore no longer open to the petitioners to question the said notifications once again. The learned Counsel for the respondents also contends that the said decision will constituteres judicata. Therefore, one of the questions that have to be considered in this case is, whether notwithstanding the decision of the Division Bench of this court in upholding the validity of the notification this court can go into the validity of the impugned notifications once again.


11.According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the present writ petitions will not be barred by the principle ofres judicatabecause of the judgment of the Division Bench in because the grounds raised in these writ petitions were not raised in the earlier cases and the petitioners were also different. According to him a new ground can be raised and a new prayer can be made even by the same petitioners who failed at the earlier stage in a subsequent writ petition. In support of the said submission, reliance has been placed on the decisions reported inRamakrishna Ramnathv.State of Maharashtra 1964 AIR(Bombay) 51) andHoshnak Singhv.Union of India and Others. The learned Counsel also refers to the decision of the Supreme Court inChandra Dhawan Boarding and Lodgings, Bangalorev.State of Mysore and Another wherein the petitioners who had earlier challenged the provisions as violating Article 19 of the Constitution and failed in 1955 before the Supreme Court, had been permitted, to challenge the provisions of the same Act as violating Article 14 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court again.


12.According to the learned Counsel for the respondents, though Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not in terms apply to the writ proceedings, the general principles ofres judicataare available, and therefore, the principle of might and ought would apply and though the earlier writ petition, namely writ petition No. 10045 of 1981 did not raise all the points now raised, the decision rendered would attract the principle ofres judicata, for, the court while sustaining the impugned notifications as not being arbitrary, should be taken to have rendered the decision after considering the points now raised which should be taken to have been canvassed and considered. After due consideration, we are, however, of the view that the present writ petitions cannot be said to be barred by the principle ofres judicatabecause of the judgment reported inJayaprakash Match Works, Kovilpatti and Othersv.Union of India and Others For one thing, these writ petitions were also originally posted before the said Bench along with writ petition No. 10045 of 1981. But the court has directed the posting of these writ petitions separately since different points had been raised therein. In these circumstances, to say that the Bench has decided these cases also on the principle ofres judicatawill be contrary to the intent and purpose of separating these cases from the said batch. Further, the principle ofres judicatawill apply only between the same parties and not when the parties are different. InGovindaraja Mudaliarv.The State of Tamilnadu the principle ofres judicatawas first applied to the proceedings under Art. 226. It was a case where the same petitioner was the party in both the earlier and later proceedings, and it was in those circumstances, the Supreme Court held that it is not open to him to reagitate the same question over again on a different ground.


13.Admittedly, in this case, the petitioners herein were not parties before the Bench inJayaprakash Match Works, Kovilpatti and Othersv.Union of India and Others and the plea raised before the Bench in that case was also entirely different. Though, in that case, it was argued that an exemption based on the processes of manufacture is arbitrary and irrational and therefore the Notification No. 42 of 1981 should be held to be bad, the court expressed the view that since the policy of the Government varies and differs depending on various economic factors, the courts have neither the wherewithal nor the equipment to decide the wisdom of their policy and that the concession granted with reference to the materials used or the process employed in making the boxes cannot be said to be irrelevant or inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, and that an exemption notification issued under Rule 8 cannot be questioned on the ground that the policy of the Government was not static. Therefore, since the identical points which were urged before us were not urged before the learned Judges, it is not open for us to say that the petitioners are barred from raising the points urged in these writ petitions. Therefore, we proceed to consider the contentions urged by the petitioners on merits.


14.According to the petitioners, the Government has been following a uniform policy of encouraging the user of cardboard for making match boxes with a view to conserve timber by giving concession in payment of excise duty, and for changing that policy suddenly, there should be sufficient justification. It is submitted that any departure from the policy must be justified by materials, and in support of the said plea, the learned Counsel relies on the decision of the Supreme Court inM/s. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd.v.The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others In that case, the question before the Supreme Court was as to what are the circumstances under which the State could avoid the application of the principle of promissory estoppel. While dealing with the question as to whether the Government could get over the plea of promissory estoppel on the basis of a revision or a change in its policy, the Supreme Court pointed out that defence of executive necessity could not be successfully pleaded and that even if there is any, the subsequent change in the policy should be justified by the materials on record and the court cannot merely act on a statute that the policy has been changed. We do not see how the decision in that case will apply here. There is no question of any promise made apart from issuing the notification in question which has been later amended. That the Government has the power to issue the notification and the like power to amend the same under the provisions of the Central Excise Act cannot be disputed. Even if the said contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners should be accepted that any departure from the earlier policy should be justified by materials, here there are materials justifying the change in the policy. As already stated, the respondents proceeded to grant partial exemption in respect of match manufacturing units which have used boxes made of cardboard either wholly or partially. This policy is based on the Government's anxiety to conserve timber and to see that the match industry does not suffer for want of timber in the years to come and that a switch over to the user of cardboard instead of veneer will not only be in the interest of the industry, but also will result in conservation of timber which is in national interest. Subsequently, on the report of the Expert Committee on Tax Measures to promote employment suggesting concessional rate of excise duty for labour intensive units alone and stating that any excise duty concession should be in proportion to the labour involved, the Government have changed their policy and decided to give the concession in the rate of excise duty for the user of cardboard in the manufacture of match boxes only to units which had not used labour saving devices, and therefore, they have chosen to take away the benefit of the concessional rate of excise duty for units which use a mechanical process for affixing labels. As the petitioners are admittedly using cardboards on which the labels have already been printed, they have been held not entitled to the concession as they have used a mechanical process or device for affixing labels which has resulted in the displacement of labour. As pointed out by the Division Bench inJayaprakash Match Works Kovilpatti and Othersv.Union of India and Others the policy of the Government cannot always be static and it has naturally vary depending upon number of economic factors. It is no doubt true, the Government had earlier granted concession for match making units based on their user of cardboard for manufacture of match boxes. But, later the Government has chosen to restrict the benefit only to those units which did not use a mechanical process in the affixing of labels on the boxes as a labour saving device. Any exemption based on the concept of intensive labour cannot be said to be outside the purview of the Government. The pasting of labels is one of the processes which can be done mechanically or manually. Whatever the process the benefit of exemption based on the user of cardboard could be claimed as per the earlier policy. However, as per the revised policy, if pasting of label is done by mechanical process resulting in the displacement of labour, then the exemption was denied to such units which used that process. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the earlier policy which is intended to conserve timber which will in the long run serve the national interest cannot be changed merely to give effect to the recommendations of the Expert Committee on Tax Measures to promote employment. It is said that Article 48(A) directs the State to protect and improve the environment and to save the forest and wildlife of the country and under Article 51(A), it is the duty of every one to protect and improve the natural environment including the forests and therefore the earlier policy of the Government in giving partial exemption to excise duty in respect of match making units which use cardboard and thus conserve wood, is an ideal policy as it was intended to carry out the directive principles of the State policy and there is no question the State of going back from the policy. This contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners over looks and obvious fact that the State, under Article 41 is equally bound, within the limits of its economic capacity, to

develop and secure the right to work and to do public assistance in case of unemployment. Thus, solving unemployment and securing employment to as many persons as possible within the economic capacity, is also one of the directive principles, and the State, while granting concession or partial concession of excise duty, is entitled to see that the concession not only results in the conservation of timber but also in additional employment of labour. Thus, the Government's intension is to conserve timber and also to secure labour and solve unemployment. As between the two objects, it is for the State to give more importance to one than the other. Thus, the respondents are well within their rights while granting partial concession in excise duty, to see that the persons who employ mechanical process in any one of the processes for the manufacture of matches resulting in the displacement of labour do not get the usual concession given for the user of cardboard instead of veneer. Thus, the first contention advanced by the learned Counsel that the Government cannot depart from the earlier policy and that the materials do not justify a change in the policy cannot be sustained. 15.It is also not possible to agree with the learned Counsel for the petitioners that since the earlier policy was based on the directive principles of State policy, it should be taken to be reasonable and it should have been continued without modification. As we have already stated, securing employment to citizens within its economic means is also one of the directive principles of the State policy set down in Part IV of the Constitution and therefore the new policy also should be taken to be reasonable. According to the learned Counsel, the new policy of taking away the benefit of concession in excise duty in the case of units using cardboard boxes in which the labels are already printed, will amount to violation of Article 14, in that, unequals will be treated alike. It is true, for the purpose of giving effect to this policy of encouraging the use of cardboard, the match units had been classified in a particular manner. But the same classification need not be continued or maintained for the purpose of enforcing its policy of avoiding displacement of labour. What the respondents have done in this case now for giving effect to their revised policy of avoiding displacement of labour is to restrict the concession of excise duty to those units who do not use a mechanical process in the affixture of labels on match boxes. The Government has retained for this purpose the broad category of mechanised and non-mechanised sectors. Since the mechanised sector has already adopted labour saving device, there is no question of their using any new mechanical process resulting in the displacement of labour. It is only in the other categories, namely, semi-mechanised, medium or tiny sectors, by using a cardboard in which already the labels are printed, there is a certainty of the labour being displaced. It is with a view to avoid this, they have chosen to deny the benefit of concessional duty in respect of units falling within the above three categories who have used mechanical devices in the matter of printing of labels before hand on the cardboard. 16.In this view, we have to agree with the view expressed by the Division Bench inJayaprakash Match Works, Kovilpatti and Othersv.Union of India and Others and reject all the contentions advanced by the petitioners. The petitions are, therefore, dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.