Judgement

BOSE J.: This case is unimportant in itself, for a small fine of Rs. 50/- (Rs. 25 on each of two counts) has been imposed for couple of breaches under section 52 (f) of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948, read with Rule 18 (5) and (6) of the Rules framed under the Act. But the question involved is of general importance in the State of Bombay and affects a large number of similar establishments, so in order to obtain a clarification of the law, this has been selected as a test case.

2. The appellant is the owner of a small establishment called the Honesty Engineering Works situate in Ahmedabad in the State of Bombay. He employs three workers. He does business in a very small way by going to certain local mills, collecting orders from them for spare parts, manufacturing the parts so ordered in his workshop, delivering them to the mills when ready and collecting the money therefor. No buying or selling is done on the premises. The question is whether a concern of this nature is a "shop" within the meaning of section 2(27) of the Act. The learned trying Magsitrate held that it was not and so acquitted. The High Court, on an appeal against the acquittal, held it was and convicted.

3. It is admitted that the appellant maintains no "leave registers" and gives his workers no "leave books" and it is admitted that the Government Inspector of Establishments discovered this on 12-1-1951 when he inspected the appellant s works. If his establishment is a "shop" within the meaning of section 2(27) he is guilty under the Act; if it is not, he is not guilty.

4. "Shop" in defined as follows in section 2(27):

"Shop means any premises where goods are sold, either by retail or wholesale or where services are rendered to customers, and includes an office, a store room, godown, warehouse or work place, whether in the same premises or otherwise mainly used in connection with such trade or business but does not include a factory, a commercial establishment, residential hotel, restaurant, eating house, theatre or other place of public amusement or entertainment."

5. As we have said, it is admitted that no goods are sold on the premises and it is also admitted that no services are rendered to customers there, for the manufacture of spare parts for sale elsewhere cannot be regarded as "services rendered."

6. The learned Attorney-General contends that the definition should be read as follows:

"Shop .....includes ......a work place......... mainly used in connection with such trade or business".

He says that the word "such" in the phrase "such trade or business" relates back to the opening words of the definition which read:

"any premises where goods are sold".

He argues that the emphasis is on the words "goods are sold" and not on the words "premises" because a trade or business relates to the buying and selling of goods and is not confined to the premises where that occurs. He admits that the main portion of the definition which relates to "premises where goods are sold" cannot exclude the "premises" element and that unless there are premises on which goods are sold, the main portion of the definition cannot apply, e. g., in the case of a street hawker or of a man who totes his goods from house to house and sells them at the door.

But he contends that the main definition is extended by including in it matter which would not be there without the words of extension and in that portion the emphasis ceases to be on the "premises" and shifts to the nature of the business; provided there is a business of selling, any work place wherever situate "mainly used in connection with it" will fall within the definition.

7. The other side relies on the ejusdem generis rule. The argument runs that the trade or business contemplated by the a in portion of the definition is not any business of selling wherever and however conducted but only those trades where the selling is conducted on defined premises. The learned counsel contends that the very idea of a shop