The main legal point established is that the ESI Act should receive a liberal and beneficial construction to extend benefits to employees, and that systematic commercial activities, including providing entertainment for a price, bring an entity within the definition of 'shop' for the purposes of the ESI Act.

ORDER

M.R. Shah, J. - Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 24.06.2022 passed in First Appeal ST No. 25980 of 2021 preferred by the appellant - the Board of Control for Cricket in India (hereinafter referred to as 'BCCI') by which the High Court has dismissed the said first appeal, which was filed against the judgment and order passed by the Employees' Insurance Court at Bombay dated 09.09.2021, declaring that the BCCI is covered within the meaning of 'shop' as per notification dated 18.09.1978 issued by the Government of Maharashtra under the provisions of Section 1(5) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'ESI Act') and remitted the matter for determining the contribution from BCCI, BCCI has preferred the present special leave petitions.

2. By communication dated 22.06.2011, issued by the Regional Director of Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Mumbai, it was communicated that the BCCI is covered under the provisions of ESI Act w.e.f. 01.01.2007 and it was allotted a Code number, indicating applicability of the provisions of the ESI Act to the BCCI. The BCCI was communicated a notice in Proforma C-18 dated 01.07.2014, claiming contribution amount to the tune of Rs. 5,04,075/-as Employees' State Insurance Contribution for the period commencing from May, 2007 to March, 2014, being subjected to the provisions of the ESI Act. The BCCI resisted the same on the grounds inter alia that the coverage of the BCCI under the provisions of ESI Act is in violation of Section 2A of the ESI Act read with Regulation 10B of the Employees' State Insurance (General) Regulations 1950, since the primary object of the BCCI is to administer, promote and control the game of cricket throughout the country, and therefore, it is not covered or registered as 'shop' under the provisions of Mumbai Shop and Establishment Act. It was also the case on behalf of the BCCI that it is not primarily engaged or involved in any trading or commercial activities and therefore, BCCI is not covered within the meaning of Section 1(5) of the ESI Act.

2.1 An appeal was preferred before the Employees' State Insurance Court, Bombay (hereinafter referred to as 'ESI Court') against the order passed under Section 45A of the ESI Act, which determined the amount of contribution to the tune of Rs. 4,93,350/- for the period from June, 2010 to March, 2014. By a detailed judgment and order and on considering the various documents produced before it, including BCCI's Memorandum of Association, Rules and Regulations; its Annual Reports, the ESI Court concluded that the activities of the BCCI can be said to be purely commercial activities and therefore, the provisions of the ESI Act shall be applicable to BCCI. The judgment and order passed by the ESI Court was the subject matter of first appeal before the High Court.

2.2 On appreciation of entire evidence on record, the activities carried out by the BCCI and the relevant clauses of the Memorandum of Association and after following the decision of this Court in the case of Bangalore Turf Club Limited Vs. Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation. 2014 (9) SCC 657, the High Court has concurred with the findings recorded by the ESI Court that the BCCI can be said to be a 'shop' as per the notification dated 18.09.1978 and therefore, subjected to the provisions of the ESI Act and specifically observed and held that the activities of the BCCI can be said to be commercial activities for the purpose of definition of 'shop' and for applicability of the provisions of the ESI Act. Consequently, by the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed the first appeal, which is the subject matter of present special leave petitions.

3. Shri Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of the petitioner - BCCI and Shri Manish Kumar Saran, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of