Staff canteens operated for employees do not qualify as 'restaurants' under the Act, thus are exempt from its provisions.

1. In this Petition under Art.226 of the Constitution, the Petitioners have claimed direction against Respondent 1, "Chief Inspector, Shops and Establishments", and the State Government to apply the provisions of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" to (i) Central Railway Staff Canteen, Victoria Terminus, Bombay 1, (ii) Bombay Police Canteen at Crawford Market (Police Headquarters) and (iii) Government Law College Canteen, Churchgate, Bombay 1. The question has arisen in the following manner :

2. Petitioner No, 1 is a trade union registered under the Indian, Trade Unions Act. It claims to have a large number of employees of hotels; residential hotels. restaurants or eating houses as its members and that its activities are to safeguard the interests of the employees in the hotel industry as such in general and particularly in the City of Bombay, Petitioner No, 2 is an employee in the Central Railway Staff Canteen, Victoria Terminus. In connection with the Bombay Police Canteen, the 1st Petitioner made a grievance that the 1st Respondent was not implementing the provisions of the Act as regards the employees in that canteen. By letter dated February 24, 1961, copy whereof is annexed as Ex. A to the Petition, the 1st Respondent informed the 1st Petitioner union that the canteen was meant only for the Police Staff and was not for the public and that the provisions of the Act were not applicable to that canteen. In connection with the Government Law College Canteen, the 1st Respondent by his letter dated August 11, 1961, addressed to the 1st Petitioner union stated that the canteen was strictly open to the law College students and its staff and not for the general public and was not governed by the provisions of the Act. The 1st Respondent addressed a letter dated October 6, 1961, to the similar effect in connection, with the Central Railway staff Canteen at Victoria Terminus. The 1st Petitioner union by its, letter dated August 23, 1962 made its representation to the 1st Respondent in connection with its submission that the provisions of the Act were applicable to staff canteens generally. As the Act was in spite of the above demand, not applied to the staff canteens referred to above, this Petition has been filed.

3. The Petitioners' case is that having regard to the provisions of the Act and particularly Sub-Sec. (25) of S.2 of the Act, it is wrong for the Respondents not to apply the provisions of the act to staff canteens. It to incumbent on the Respondents to apply the provisions of the Act to staff canteens.

4. In connection with the above contention of the Petitioners, it is necessary to refer to the Scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions thereof, it appears from the preamble to the Act that the purpose of the Act is to enact law relating to the regulation of conditions of work and employment in public places like shops, commercial establishments, residential hotels, restaurants, eating houses, theatres and other places of public amusement or entertainment. These places are divided into several sub-headings as (1) "Shops and Commercial Establishments", (2) "Residential Hotels, Restaurants and Eating Houses" and (3) "Theatres or other places of Public Amusement or entertainment". S.s10 to 18 in Chap.111 of the Act make provisions about opening and closing hours and daily and weekly hours of work, intervals for rest, holidays in a week and such matters as regards shops and commercial establishments. S.s19 to 25 of the Act make similar provisions regarding residential hotels, restaurants and eating houses. S.s26