R.K. DESHPANDE, J.

1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.

2. The petitioner is a medical practitioner as General and Paediatric Surgeon and runs a Nursing Home, viz. Arora Hospital, on the first floor of Shreewardhan Complex, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur. The petitioner claims that the Nursing Home is duly registered under the Maharashtra Medical Council Act, 1965 and the certificate of registration to that effect issued on 21-12-1993 is placed on record.

3. The challenge in this petition is to the definition of "establishment" under Section 2(4) of the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 2017 ("the new Act"), brought into force with effect from 7-9-2017, to the extent it applies to the profession and the establishment of any medical practitioner (including hospital, dispensary, clinic, polyclinic, maternity home and such others) and requiring such establishment to comply with the provision of Section 6 in respect of its registration with the Facilitator if the employees engaged are ten or more, and Section 7 regarding intimation of it to be given if the strength of the employees engaged is less than ten. As a result of registration of such establishment with the Facilitator, the provisions of the said Act become applicable and the employer is under statutory obligation to comply with it. The challenge is on the ground that it violates the guarantee of the petitioner contained in Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India to practise profession or to carry on any occupation or business and that it is beyond the competence of the State Legislature.

4. Initially, on 4-12-2017, this Court issued notice to the respondent, returnable on 15-1-2018. Separate notice was also directed to be issued to the Office of Advocate-General of the State. The petition was amended on 6-6-2018 and we thought it fit to appoint Shri Sunil Manohar, the learned Senior Advocate as Amicus Curiae to be assisted by Shri Nikhil Gaikwad, Advocate. On 13-7-2018, we thought that it would not be necessary for this Court to go into the question of vires of the provisions of the new Act if the State Government is of the opinion that the medical establishment of the petitioner is covered by the exemption provided under Section 3(8) of the new Act.

5. On 24-10-2018, we heard the petitioner, appearing in person; also Shri Sunil Manohar, the learned Senior Advocate, appointed as Amicus Curiae; and Shri Aashutosh Kumbhkoni, the learned Advocate-General, at length.

6. The Maharashtra Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 (referred to as "the old Act) was brought into force with effect from 11-1-1948 and it was to consolidate and amend the law relating to the regulation of conditions of work and employment in shops and commercial establishments, residential hotels, restaurants, eating houses, theatres, other places of amusement or entertainment and other establishments. Section 2(4) of the old Act defined "Commercial establishment" as under :

Section 2(4) :

""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, 1980, 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) defined the "establishment" as under : Section 2(8) :

""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 Governmen