The judgment established the principle that notifications issued under an Act have the force of law and should be interpreted liberally in the context of social security legislation, aligning with the object of the Act to provide benefits to employees.

V. Khalid, J.

1. The petitioner is a construction company represented by its partner. He is engaged in the business of undertaking civil contract works for which purpose workers are engaged from time to time at the site. The petitioner has an office at Thoppumpadi, Cochin-5, in order to coordinate the work and supervise the same.

2. The 1st respondent is the Government of Kerala and the 2nd respondent, the Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation, Trichur. In exercise of the powers conferred on the 1st respondent by S.1 (5) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, for short the Act, notice was issued of its intention to extend the provisions of the Act to certain classes of establishments specified in the schedule annexed to the notification. A true copy of the notification is Ext. P1. S.1(5) reads as follows:

"1(5) The appropriate Government may, in consultation with the Corporation and (where the appropriate Government is a State Government, with the approval of the Central Government), after giving six months' notice of its intention of so doing by notification in the Official Gazette, extend the provisions of this Act or any of them, to any other establishment or class of establishments, industrial, commercial, agricultural or otherwise".

Under this section, the Government can extend or make applicable the provisions of the Act to any establishment it likes, by the issuance of a notification before six months of the date from which the Government intends to extend the Act to such establishments. The permission of the Central Government is also necessary when a State Government issues such notification. The annexure to Ext. P1 categories six establishments. They are:-

"(i) Hotels;

(ii) Restaurants;

(iii) Shops;

(iv) Road Motor Transport Establishments;

(v) Cinemas including preview theatres;

(vi) Newspaper establishments as defined in S.2(d) ....''

The petitioner felt that his establishment was attempted to be roped in, in the category 'shop' and hence this writ petition. Ext. P2 is the correction notification and Ext. P3 is the notice to the petitioner calling upon him to submit the necessary indent for declaration forms. The petitioner challenges Exts. P1, P2 and P3 and prays for an appropriate writ to quash them and for a direction prohibiting the respondents from implementing the provisions of the Act to the petitioner's establishment.

3. The 2nd respondent in his counter affidavit states that the petitioner's establishment comes under serial No. iii, namely, 'shops' and Exts. P1, P2 and P3 cannot be attacked on any sustainable ground. It is further stated that the word 'shop' takes within its ambit any place of employment or activity and, therefore, the petitioner's business comes within the mischief of Ext. P1.

4. The petitioner has not clearly indicated in his petition the contention that the petitioner's business premises do not come within the expression 'shops'. In the grounds all that is stated is that the petitioner's business is not an establishment and that even if it is an establishment it does not come within the five classes of establishments mentioned in Ext. P1. Be that as it may, from the submission at the bar it is clear that the petitioner and the respondents have joined issue on the question whether the category 'shops' in Ext. P1 would include the business which the petitioner is carrying on.

5. What has to be decided in this case is whether the petitioner's business can be brought within the ambit of the expression 'shops'. For a consideration of this question an enquiry has to be first made whether the principles governing interpretation of statutes are applicable to interpretation of notifications also. If the principles that govern the interpretation of statutes are to govern interpretation of notifications also, then the task appears to be easy. It was forcefully contended by the petitioner's counsel that the statutes and notifications cannot be placed on the same par and principles governing interpretati