Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L.M.Sharma : M.N.Venkatachaliah : S.Mohan
P.K.Mohammad Private Limited, Cochin
Versus
Employees State Insurance Corporation
Case No. : 2599 of 1980
Date of Decision : 8/19/92
Sea Customs Act - Section 202 - Evidence produced in the case – Trial Court – Jurisdiction - Thereafter a notice with which were enclosed certain printed forms, was received by appellant - Appellant replied denying liability to pay any contribution under Act - Stand of the appellant was that the company does not come within the notification as appellant was not a shop and was carrying on business of clearing and forwarding at Cochin Port - In reply to the said letter the appellant received a letter staling that Inspector who visited the appellant found persons employed in the shop. It was functioning shipping, clearing and forwarding agents - Appellant served the customers - Therefore, it was a shop within the dictionary meaning of the term and called upon the appellant to submit the returns – Held, IN this case argument advanced on behalf of the appellant is slightly different, namely, other kinds of establishments which can easily fall within the definition of "shop" have been enumerated. Hence, a specific enumeration, so as to include appellants business activity, is to be insisted upon. In our considered view, this argument cannot be accepted - First of all merely because other establishments which are akin to shop are enumerated it does not in any manner, oblige us to give a narrow meaning to the word "shop" nor does it any way dilute the meaning of "shop". As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, the object is to envelop as many establishments as possible without leaving any room for doubt. That is precisely what the notification intends to do - Appellant is carrying on stevedoring, clearing and forwarding operations. Clearing the documents, even it be in the custom house, is necessary for the export or import of goods - These services form part of the carriers job. It cannot be gainsaid that the appellant is rendering service to cater the needs of exporters and importers and others who want to carry the goods further. Therefore, it is a shop carrying on a systematic economic or a commercial activity. This would be enough to bring the appellant without specifically enumerating the specific activities carried on by the appellant - Merely because shop has been enumerated along with other similar establishments we do not think any further specific enumeration is necessary to cover the appellant - Thus we reject contentions raised on behalf of the appellant - If or- ders are received at a place which ultimately fructify into sales and the resulting trading activity is directed from there that place comes to be known as a "shop". In our view the Employees Insurance court placed a very narrow interpretation on the expression "shop" while upholding the contention of the petitioner by confining "shop" to a place where goods are actually stored and delivered pursuant to a sale. We agree with the decision of the High court that while a welfare legislation like Act and the notification issued a liberal construction should be placed on their pro- visions so that the purpose of the legislation may be allowed to be achieved rather than frustrated or stultified – Appeal dismissed
Judgment
L.M. SHARMA, J.
(1) THE learned counsel for the respondent has, in support of his stand, placed reliance on several decisions of this court and the High Courts in which the notification in identical terms has been construed in the way as is sug- gested on behalf of the Corporation. Although Mr. Bobde,learned counsel for the appellant, has advanced an argument, which on the face of it, appears to be attractive, I think that in view of the consistent interpretation of the notification tionwhich has been followed in the country, the question should not be reopened for fresh con- sideration. Accordingly, I agree that all these appeals should be dismissed but without costs.
PER MOHAN, J.
(2) THESE appeals can be dealt with by a common judgment since the question of law to be decided is one and the same. It is enough if we note the facts in Civil Appeal No. 2599 of 1980.
(3) THE appellant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. It has its registered office at Jew Town in Mattancherry. It is enga- ged in the business of clearing and forwarding at the Port of Cochin situated in Willingdon Island. It is authorised to transact its business at the Cochin Custom House under the terms of Section 202 of the Sea Customs Act read with the Rules made thereunder and a licence was issued under the said provisions.
(4) THE appellant received a notice dated 3/01/1975 enclosing certain notification whereby the Employees State Insurance Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was extended to certain classes of establishments specified in the Schedule wherein 20 or more persons are employed or were employed during that period. The appellant replied that it did not fall under the purview of the said notification. There- fore,the appellant was not liable to comply with any of the provisions of the Act. Another letter dated 8/09/1975 was received by the appellant calling it upon to furnish certain details. This was replied to by a letter dated 20/09/1975 whereunder the details were furnished. Thereafter a notice dated Nove- mber 7, 1975 with which were enclosed certain printed forms, was received by the appellant. The appellant replied on 18/11/1975 denying liability to pay any contribution under the Act. The stand of the appellant was that the company does not come within the notification dated 18/09/1974 as the appellant was not a shop and was carrying on business of clearing and forwarding at the Cochin Port. In reply to the said letter the appellant received a letter dated 9/12/1975 staling that the Insuraance Inspector who visited the appellant found 20 persons employed in the shop. It was functioning aas shipping, clearing and forward- ing agents. The appellant served the cus- tomers. Therefore, it was a shop within the dictionary meaning of the term and called upon the appellant to submit the returns.
(5) CONTENDING that the appellant does not render any service to customers at its office, it was merely carrying on clearing and forwarding business by processing the documents at Cus- tom House, no service being rendered at the appellants office establishment, it was urged that it could not be called a shop within the dictionary meaning. An application was moved under Section 75 of the Act before the Employ- ees Insurance court, Calicut to decide the dis- pute and to hold that the appellant was not a shop within the purview of the Act and, therefore, the Act itself was inapplicable.
(6) OBJECTIONS were preferred on behalf of the Regional Director, Employees State Corpora- tion, that in view of the notification dated Sep- tember 18, 1974 supplemented by the other notifications dated 2/12/1974 and 22/03/1975, the appellants business would fall within the ambit of the said notifications. The government of Kerala issued those noti- fications with a view to extend benefits to the employees working in other S. of orga- nised labour such as shops and establishments.
(7)
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
