SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V. RAMASWAMI AND C.A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.
Dr. Devendra M. Surti, Appellant
Versus
The State of Gujarat, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 1966,
D/-2-5-1968.
Advocates appeared
Mr. S. T. Desai, Senior Advocate (M/s. Arun H. Mehta and I. N. Shroff, Advocates, with him), for Appellant; M/s.R. H. Dhebar and M. S. K. Sastri, Advocates, for Respondent.
Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 - Section 52 (e), 62 , 2(4) , 2 (8) , 2 (3) , 2 (4), 2 (27), (24), (29), 5 , 7 (1) , 10 , 11 , 7 (2) , 14 , 15 , 17 , 18 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 38 , 38-A , 52, 62, 63 and Rule 23 (1) - Workmen s Compensation Act, 1923 - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 2 (j) - Doctors Dispensary - Commercial Establishment - Whether a Doctor s dispensary is a "Commercial Establishment" within meaning of Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 - Whether registered or not, which carries on whether for purposes of gain or not, any business, trade or profession or work in connection - Whether directly or through any agency, and whether for wages or other consideration - Whether it was a shop, commercial establishment, residential hotel, restaurant, eating house, theatre or other place of public amusement or entertainment - Whether a professional activity falls within Section 2 (4) of Act - Whether activity is systematically and habitually undertaken for production or distribution of goods or for rendering material services to community – Held, It is not easy to conceive that a liberal profession like that of an attorney could have been intended by Legislature to fall within definition of industry under Section 2 (j) - Very concept of liberal professions has its own special and distinctive features which do not readily permit inclusion of liberal professions into four corners of industrial law - Essential basis of an industrial dispute is that it is a dispute arising between capital and labour in enterprises where capital and labour combine to produce commodities or to render service - That is why on broad and general considerations which cannot be ignored, a liberal profession like that of an attorney must, Court think, be deemed to be outside definition of industry under Section 2 (j) - To put it differently, manner in which activity in question is organised or arranged, condition of co-operation between employer and employees being necessary for its success and its object being to render material service to community can be regarded as some of features which render carrying on of a professional activity to fall within ambit of Section 2 (4) of Act - Tested in light of these principles, Court hold that case of appellant does not fall within purview of Act and conviction of appellant of offence under Section 52 (c) of Act read with Section 62 of Act and Rule 23 (1) of Rules is illegal - Appeal allowed.
Judgement
RAMASWAMI, J.: The question involved in this appeal is as to whether a Doctor s dispensary is a "Commercial Establishment" within the meaning of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 (Bombay Act LXXIX of 1948), hereinafter referred to as the Act .
2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant was a doctor having his dispensary situated near Jakaria Masjid at Ahmedabad. The dispensary is registered as a Commercial Establishment under the provisions of the Act. The complainant Shri Patel visited the dispensary on June 13, 1963 at about 9.50 A. M. and found that though the dispensary was registered as Commercial Establishment under the Act, the Register produced before him at the time of his visit was not maintained as required under Rule 23 (1) of the Rules framed under the Act. Necessary remarks were made by the complainant in the Visit Book of the dispensary. Thereafter, a complaint was filed against the appellant after obtaining sanction for his prosecution under Section 52 (e) of the Act read with Section 62 of the Act and Rule 23 (1) of the Rules. The case was contested by the appellant on the ground that the doctor s dispensary was not a "Commercial Establishment within the meaning of the Act and the provisions of the Act did not therefore apply to his dispensary and the appellant had not committed any offence. The City Magistrate (First Court), (Municipal), Ahmedabad held that the appellant was not guilty and acquitted him. The State of Gujarat took the matter in appeal to the High Court of Gujarat in Criminal Appeal No. 208 of 1964. The appeal was allowed by the High Court by its judgment dated February 14, 1966 and the appellant was convicted for an offence under Section 52 (e) read with Sec. 62 of the Act and R. 23 (1) of the Rules and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a week.
3. This appeal is brought by certificate from the judgment of the High Court.
4. Before considering the rival contentions of the parties it is necessary to examine the scheme of the Act. The preamble to the Act states that it is an Act "to consolidate and amend the law relating to the regulation of conditions of work and employment in shops, commercial establishments, residential hotels, restaurants, eating houses, theatres, other places of public amusement or entertainment and other establishments". Section 2(4) of the Act defines "Commercial establishment" as follows:-
" Commercial establishment means an establishment which carries on, any business, trade or profession or any work in connection with, or incidental or ancillary to, any business, trade or profession and includes a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and a charitable or other trust, whether registered or not, which carries on whether for purposes of gain or not, any business, trade or profession or work in connection with or incidental or ancillary thereto but does not include a factory, shop, residential hotel, restaurant, eating house, theatre or other place of public amusement or entertainment."
Section 2 (8) states:
Establishment means a shop, commercial establishment, residential hotel, restaurant, eating house, theatre, or other place of public amusement or entertainment to which this Act applies and includes such other establishment as the State Government, may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be an establishment for the purposes of this Act."
Section 2 (6) and Section 2 (7) read as follows:
"(6) Employee means a person wholly or principally employed, whether directly or through any agency, and whether for wages or other consideration, in or in connection with any establishment; and includes an apprentice, but does not include a member of the employer s family."
"(7) Employer means a person owning or having ultimate control over the affairs of an establishment."
Section 2 (3) and 2 (18) define the expression "closed" and "opened" as meaning "closed or opene
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.