Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr Palak H Thakkar
For the Respondent: Ms Kirti S Pathak

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the case:

• Case Details: The case involves First Appeal No. 1022 of 2023 filed by M/s. Deloitte Haskins And Sells (a Chartered Accountant firm) against a remand order, and First Appeal No. 2588 of 2023 filed by the ESI Corporation challenging a finding that the ESI Act does not apply to such firms. Both appeals were heard together due to a common question of law. (!) (!) (!)
• Core Issue: The central legal issue is whether the provisions of the Employees State Insurance (ESI) Act, 1948, are applicable to the firm of a Chartered Accountant. This depends on whether the firm's office qualifies as a "shop" or "commercial establishment" under Section 1(5) of the ESI Act and relevant notifications. (!) (!) (!)
• ESI Corporation's Argument: The ESI Corporation argued that the office of a Chartered Accountant falls under the definition of a "shop" because it renders services to customers for remuneration. They relied on the definition of "shop" in the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948, and analogies drawn from Supreme Court cases involving advertising agencies and race clubs, where services were sold for a fee. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
• Appellant's Argument: The Chartered Accountant firm argued that their activity is a "profession" rather than a "commercial activity." They cited the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, which regulates the profession through a Code of Ethics and requires special skill and learning. They contended that the profession is intellectual and distinct from trade or business, and that no notification specifically includes Chartered Accountant firms under the ESI Act. (!) (!) (!) (!)
• Distinction Between Profession and Commerce: The Court emphasized the fundamental distinction between professional activity (based on personal skill, intelligence, and regulated by specific acts like the Chartered Accountants Act) and commercial activity (based on trade or business). The Court noted that unlike advertising agencies, Chartered Accountants require specific qualifications and are governed by a Code of Conduct. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
• Precedents Relied Upon: The Court relied on several precedents establishing that offices of lawyers and Chartered Accountants are not "shops" or "commercial establishments." These include Employees State Insurance Corporation vs. Ramanlal G. Shah, M/s. Singhvi Dev and Unni, B.K. Ramadhyani and Company, M/s. A.F. Ferguson & Company, and Supreme Court judgments like V. Sasidharan and Dr. Devendra M. Surti. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
• Nature of Services: The Court observed that the services rendered by Chartered Accountants (auditing, taxation, management consultancy) are not confined to a single premises and often involve visiting clients, making it difficult to categorize the office strictly as a "shop" where services are rendered on-site in a commercial manner. (!) (!)
• Judgment and Ruling: The Court held that the office of a Chartered Accountant is a "profession" and not a "shop" or "commercial establishment." Consequently, the provisions of the ESI Act do not extend to such firms in the absence of a specific notification. (!) (!) (!)
• Outcome: