SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1995 Supreme(Raj) 1089

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
V.G.Palshikar, J.
Chief Executive Officer, Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. and another - Appellant
Versus
Madanlal Pasricha and another - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petn. No. 645/1985.
Decided On : 27-11-1995

For the Petitioners:D.S. Shisodia, Sr.Advocate, S.R. Singhi, Suresh Kumbhat, Advocate.
For the Respondents:M.R. Singhavi, M. Mridul, Sr. Advocate, R.K. Singhal, D.R. Bandari, Advocates.

Offices of the State Government are exempted from the operation of the Rajasthan Shops & Commercial Establishments Act, 1958, under Section 3, and authorities under the Act have no jurisdiction to entertain applications for relief under Section 28-A from employees of such offices.

Headnote:

RAJASTHAN SHOPS & COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS ACT, 1958 - SECTION 3 - EXEMPTION OF OFFICES OF THE GOVERNMENT - INTERPRETATION OF THE DEFINITION OF "COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT" AND "SHOP" - JURISDICTION OF AUTHORITIES UNDER THE ACT.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, Sriganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd., challenged various orders made by authorities under the Rajasthan Shops & Commercial Establishments Act, 1958, by employees seeking relief under Section 28-A of the Act. The issue arose whether the relief could be granted under the Act when the petitioner's establishment was exempted from its operation under Section 3.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the petitioner's establishment was exempted from the operation of the Act under Section 3, which exempts offices of the State Government from its application. The court interpreted the definitions of "commercial establishment" and "shop" in the Act to include offices, and held that the exemption in Section 3 was intended to cover commercial establishments of the State Government.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's establishment was exempted from the operation of the Rajasthan Shops & Commercial Establishments Act, 1958, under Section 3. 2. Whether the authorities under the Act had jurisdiction to entertain applications for relief under Section 28-A from employees of the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the definitions of "commercial establishment" and "shop" in the Act, which included offices, and held that the exemption in Section 3 was intended to cover commercial establishments of the State Government. The court also noted that the petitioner's establishment was covered by the Factories Act, 1948, and that a previous decision of the court had held that the Shops & Commercial Establishments Act did not apply to establishments covered by the Factories Act.

Final Decision: The court allowed the petitions and set aside the impugned orders, holding that the authorities under the Act had no jurisdiction to entertain the applications for relief under Section 28-A from employees of the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

1. - In all these petitions, the petitioner i.e. The Sriganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd., Sriganganagar has challenged various orders made by the authorities under the Rajasthan Shops & Commercial Establishments Act, 1958. All petitions have been made under Section 28-A of that Act given by different employees for different reliefs. However, one common question arises in all these petitions and on the decision of that question the fate of all these cases lies. All these petitions are being decided by this common order as the question is common to all and the jurisdictional question comes to the root of all the matters.

2. The relationship of master and servant between the petitioner and the respondent is not disputed. That the respondents are employees of the petitioner Sugar Mills is not disputed. That particular 'workman' as contemplated by the Industrial Disputes Act or some other beneficial Legislation cannot be disputed. The only question which arise in these cases for adjudication is whether under the provisions of the Rajasthan Shops & Commercial Establishments Act, 1958, the relief claimed by the respondents can be granted by the authorities under Section 28-A of that Act when by reason of Section 3 the Establishment of the petitioner is exempted from the operation of the Act itself.

3. Mr. D.S. Shishodia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that a bare perusal of the provisions of Section 3 would bear out the contention. He pointed out by relying on the definition of the words 'Commercial Establishments & Shops' in the said Act, and claimed that the petitioner Mills is certainly an Establishment or Office or Undertaking of the Government entitled to the exemption contemplated by Section 3 of the Act.

4. Opposing these submissions, it was stated by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that on the plain reading of Section 3 of the Act what is exempted from the operation of the Act is Offices of the Central or State Government and not a Commercial Establishment established by the State Government.

5. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it would be better to take into consideration the several provisions of law quoted to this issue. Section 2(3) of the Rajasthan Shops & Commercial Establishments Act, 1958 hereinafter referred to as the Act reads thus:

"Section 2(3) "commercial establishment" means a commercial or trading or banking or insurance establishment, an establishment or administrative service in which the persons employed are mainly engaged in office work, a hotel, a restaurant, boarding or eating house, cafe or any other refreshment house, a theatre or any other place of public amusement or entertainment and includes every such establishment as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be a commercial establishment for the purposes of this Act;"
Section 2(7) defines "establishment" to mean an establishment or a commercial shop. A shop is defined in Section 2(17) to mean thus:

"2(17) "shop" means any premises where any trade or business is carried on or where services are rendered to customers, and includes offices, store-rooms, godowns or ware-houses, whether in the same premises or otherwise, used in connection with such trade or business but does not include a commercial establishment or a shop attached to a factory where the persons employed in the shop are allowed the benefits provided for workers under the Factories Act, 1948 (Central Act LXIII of 1948);

6. Provisions of Section 3 requires notice:

"3. Exemption, -- (1) Nothing in this Act shall apply to--

a) offices of or under the Central or any State Government or local authorities;

b) offices of the Reserve Bank of India;

c) establishments for the treatment of the care of the infirm, or the mentally unfit;

d) persons whose work is inherently intermittent such as travellers or caretakers;

e) fairs or bazars for sale of work for charitable or other purposes from which no















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top