This case dealt with the constitutional right to work and its restrictions in the context of environmental protection. Article 15 of the Constitution provided that the people’s right to work was guaranteed. In order to promote public interests, restrictions could be imposed on the means of engaging in work and on the necessary qualifications to the extent that they were in line with Article 23 of the Constitution. Under Article 21 of the Waste Disposal Act, the central competent authority had to prescribe the regulations governing the supervision of and assistance to public and private waste cleanup and disposal organs. The Environmental Protection Administration formulated and issued the corresponding regulation. Article 31 (i) thereof provided, "In circumstances where the disposal organs broke the law or operated improperly, thus seriously polluting the environment or jeopardizing human health, the competent authority shall revoke the certificates of qualification for the cleanup or disposal technicians hired by such organs." The court had to decide whether the said regulation was constitutional. It emphasized that the said provision referred to such circumstances where the waste cleanup or disposal organs seriously polluted the environment or jeopardized human health. It did not go beyond the scope of authorization mandated by Article 21 of the said Waste Disposal Act. Instead, it was an effective method of improving environmental sanitation and preserving the public health by means of achieving the authorized purposes of effectively supervising and assisting the public and private waste cleanup and disposal organs. It held that the restrictions imposed on the people’s right of work did not go beyond the necessary extent, and were consistent with the provisions of Article 23 of the Constitution.