The term "shop" in the context of the G.O. issued under Section 1(5) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 should be given its ordinary meaning, which is a place where goods are sold by retail and stored for sale or where articles of commerce are dealt in.

RAMACHANDRA RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THESE four are connected appeals filed under Sec. 82 of the employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the Act ). They raise a common question whether the Head office at Jambagh, Hyderabad of the a P State Co-operative Marketing federation Limited (hereinafter called the federation ) answers the description of a shop within the meaning of G 0 Ms. No 297, Health, dated 25th March, 1975 issued under Sub-section (5) of sec 1 of the Act. The said notification extended with effect from 30th March, 1975, all the provisions of the said Act to the classes of establishments specified in Column (1) of the Schedule mentioned therein in the areas specified in Column (2) thereof. In terms of the said notification. shops where twenty or more persons are employed for wages on any day of the preceding twelve months situated within the municipal limits of the corporations of Hyderabad and Secunderabad and Secunderabad Cantonment are brought within the purview of the Act. The federation, besides its other activities which will be shortly noticed, owns a rice bran oil factory (solvent extraction factory) at Vijayawada; one groundnut solvent extraction factory each at Karimnagar and Anantapur, a Cotton Ginning press at Adilabad and a Feed Mixing plant at Nandyal in Kurnool district. The factory at Vijayawada is Covered by the Act which applies to Vijayawada area. The act, however, does not apply to Karimnagar, anantapur, Adilabad and Nandyal areas. In the Head Office of the federation, there are four divisions namely; (1) the General Division attending to the consolidation of accounts pertaining to the District Centres or Branches and the head Office; (2) the Engineering Division attending, on the technical side, to the mechanical, aspects of the factories, ewned by the Federation and, on the civil side, to the construction of the godowns of the Federation etc. , (3) the procurement Division: and (4) Fertilisers division, 118 persons in the General division, 50 persons in the Engineering division, 94 persons in the Procurement division and 63 persons in the Fertilisers division were found to be working in the head Office. Pursuant to the G 0 aforesaid a demand for Rs 13,125/-was issued on 30-4-1976 by the E S I Corporation (hereinafter called the corporation ). The Federation questioned the demand before the Insurance Court under Sec. 75 of the Act in E l Case No 21/76. The Employees Insurance Court, by its order Ex R-1 dated 20-7-1976, held that the Head Office of the Federation answers the discription of the word "shop" occurring in the G O. , but, non-the-less, set aside the demand and directed the Corporation to determine the exact amount of employees contribution payable by the Federation after going through the relevant wages registers and after identifying the employees coverable under the Act with reference to their salaries. The Insurance inspector subsequently visited the Head office on 23-7-1977 and prepared the report Ex. R 2 dated 25-7-1977 for the period from 30-3-1975 to 30-6-1977. The Corporation by its letter dated 3-9-1977, demanded the payment of Rs. 22, 777-21p as contribution for a certain period from 30-3-1975. By another notice dated 24-9-1977, the Corporation made an adhoc assessment under Sec 45-A of the Act, demanding the payment of Rs. 71,091-12p for the period subsequent to 29-11-1975. There was some dispute that there was over-laping of periods in the two demands, but it is now common ground that the correct amounts involved in the demands are respectively rs. 20,520-21 p covered by the demand dated 3-9-1977 and Rs. 71,091-12p. covered by the latter demand dated 24-9-1977. The Federation applied before Employees Insurance Court in e I Case No. 78-77 to set aside the demand dated 3-9-1977 and E I Case no 77/77 to set aside the demand dated 24-9-1977. The learned Judge of the employees Insurance Court, by the impugned order, declared that only such of the employees wor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document