The term 'shop' in the ESI Act and the notification issued thereunder must be interpreted liberally to achieve the Act's social welfare objectives. A 'shop' is a business establishment where systematic or organized commercial activity takes place regarding the sale or purchase of goods or services, including establishments that facilitate such transactions.

JUDGMENT :

BHARATI DANGRE, J.

1. The present Appeal is filed by the Board of Control for Cricket of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘BCCI’), being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order passed by the Employees Insurance Court at Bombay (ESI Court dated 9/9/2021, declaring that the BCCI is covered within the meaning of ‘shop’ as per notification dated 18th September 1978 issued by the Government of Maharashtra under the provisions of Section 1(5) of the Employees State Insurance Act and the ESI Court, has remitted the matter for determining the contribution from the appellant Board in the wake of the observations made in the impugned judgment.

2. In support of the Appeal, I have heard the learned Advocate Mr. Aditya Thacker with Mr.Rahul Dev i/b Argus Partners for the appellant and Mr.Shailesh Pathak along with Jay Vora for the respondent.

Since the parties expressed their desire to argue the Appeal finally and have placed on record the compilation of documents, and also the compilation of the relevant judgments on which they seek to place reliance, at the request of the parties, I have heard the Appeal finally.

3. The brief facts in the background of which the present Appeal deserve consideration, can be culled out as under:

The BCCI is a Society registered under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 in Central Chennai. It claims to be a National Government Body for Cricket in India and stake it’s existence since the year 1928. It is an autonomous non-profit making sports body established for promoting the sports of Cricket in India.

In the month of April-May 2011, the Board office was surveyed by the Insurance Inspector and the salary details of it’s employees were verified. Upon completion of the inspection, a visit note was recorded by the Inspector on 10/5/2011 and by communication dated 22/6/2011, issued by Regional Director of Employees State Insurance Corporation, Mumbai, it was communicated that the BCCI is covered under the provisions of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 with effect from 1/1/2007 and it was allotted a Code number, indicating applicability of the provisions of ESI Act to the Board. The Board was communicated a notice in Proforma C-18 dated 1/7/2014, 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 ESI Act, the Board resisted by letter dated 11/8/2014, and clarified that it is a non-profit organization, where no commercial/ economic/manufacturing activities are performed or carried on and it requested the ESI Corporation to reconsider it’s decision of allotment ESI Code. On various dates, hearing was conducted before the Assistant Director of ESI Corporation, and on 23/6/2015, the legal Advisor of the Assistant Director of ESI Corporation called for personal hearing, but refused to accept the claim of the Board that it is not covered under the provisions of the ESI Act, and the decision came as a shock, since no opportunity of hearing was afforded to it before the decision was taken.

In short, the claim of the BCCI, the appellant is, that the coverage of the appellant Board under the provisions of ESI Act is in utter violation of Section 2-A of the ESI Act read with Regulation 10-B of the ESI (General) Regulations 1950, since the Board is a governing body for cricket in India and it’s primary object is to administer, promote and control the game of cricket throughout the country, including women’s cricket and to encourage formation of State, regional and other cricket associations and therefore, it is not covered or registered as ‘shop’ under the provisions of Mumbai Shop and Establishment Act. It is the claim of the appellant that it is not primarily engaged or involved in any trading or commercial activities and therefore, by no st