KERALA HIGH COURT
*Subramonian Poti, Janaki Amma, JJ.
The Darask Limited – Appellant
Versus
Employees State Insurance Corporation – Respondent
Employees State Insurance Act 1948 | Appeal No. [Not specified]
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the appellant is regarded as a shop under the employees state insurance act. (Para 1) |
| 2. interpretation of 'shop' under common law principles is elaborated. (Para 2) |
1. The appellant company has been found by the Employees State Insurance Court to be a shop falling within the scope of Notification under S.1(5) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. The Kerala Government issued notification dated 22-3-1975 specifying certain establishments wherein 20 or more persons are employed or were employed for wages on any day of the preceding 12 months to be covered under the Act with effect from 29-3-1975. These establishments were:
1. Hotels.
2. Restaurants
3. Shops
4. Road Motor Transport Establishments
5. Cinemas including preview theatres.
6. Newspaper establishments as defined in S.2 (d) of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service, and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1945
The Darask Limited who is the appellant company here moved the Employees State Insurance Court for a declaration that it is not liable to be covered under the Act. This was so moved because of the stand taken by the Employees State Insurance Corporation that the office of the appellant company at Cannon Shed Road, Ernakulam was liable to be covered under the Act. That there are more than 20 persons employed in that office is not disputed. But it is said that it is not a shop falling within the notification adverted to so much so that it would not be an establishment to which the Act applies. The Insurance Court has held that it is a shop and therefore liable to be covered. This order of the Insurance Court is challenged in this appeal.
2. 'Shop' is not a term defined either in the Notification or in the Act. So it must have the meaning as understood in common parlance. That I the popular meaning is to be given to the term is indicated by the decision in I. T. Commr A. P. v. Taj Mahal Hotel (AIR 1972 SC 168). The dictionary meaning of the term 'Shop' is mentioned in the order of the Insurance Court as 'Shop' is a place where any kind of industry is persued; a place of employment or activity industry means systematic economic activity or any branch thereof". Generally a shop is a place where commercial activities such as buying and selling take place. But there need not necessarily be such activity to make a place a shop. It may be a servicing centre where servicing is done for price. Radio repairing shop, shoe repairing shop, cycle repairing shop are examples. Where there is no commercial activity at all the fact that employees are engaged may not be sufficient to make it a shop. Normally one associates the term shop with customer. Where there is no commercial activity at all and the place is not intended for commercial activity there will be no occasion for a customer to deal with that office. It may not be necessary for the purpose of this case to go further into the term shop, for, it appears to us that on the facts evidenced in this case the Canon Shed Office of the appellant company is nothing but a shop. It is not a case where there may be any difficulty in finding so. Ext. P1 is the agreement entered into between the appellant company and its principal Alembic Chemical Works Limited. The case of the appellant as stated in the application filed under S.77 read with S.75 of the Act before the Insurance Court is that the applicant is a marketing organisation acting as dealers or agents of certain manufacturing companies situated outside the State working for a commission on the sales turnover and effecting sales promotion. The applicant has no manufacturing unit and the staff of the applicant at Ernakulam are directly controlled and supervised by the Executive Director at Bangalore. That the relationship between the applicant company and its principal is governed by Ext. P1 (seen marked as Ext. P2) is not disputed by the parties. There is no case that subsequent to Ext. P1 agreement the terms of the agreement have been chang
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.