AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Chandrashekaraiah, J.—This appeal is against the order passed by the E.I. Court on the application filed by the appellant u/s 75 of the Employees'' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short ''Act'').
The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is a firm engaged in imparting training to the members and students and is run on ''no profit no loss basis'' in horse riding and it collects fees for that service and therefore, it is not shop so as to apply the provisions of the Act.
From the evidence adduced before the E.I. Court, it is seen that the appellant is engaged in the business of horse riding. If that is so, the question that arises for consideration is:
"whether the appellant''s firm is a shop or not?"
The State Government by virtue of the power conferred on it u/s 1(5) of the Act has issued a notification extending the application of the Act even to the shops, road transport establishments, cinema including newspaper establishments employing more than 20 persons with effect from July 21, 1985. The word ''shop'' is not defined under the Act. The notification also is silent in this regard. If that is so, it is just and necessary to depend upon the meaning given in the dictionary and also the definition of the word ''shop'' under the provisions of the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961. The dictionary meaning of the word ''shop'' means "a house or building where goods are made or prepared for sale and sold". It also means a "place of business". The word ''shop'' has been defined u/s 2(u) of the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961 as follows:
''shop'' means any premises where any trade or business is carried on or where services are rendered to the customers, and includes offices, store rooms or ware houses, whether in the same premises or otherwise, used in connection with such trade or business, but docs not include a commercial shop or a shop attached to a factory where the persons employed in the shop fall within the scope of Factories Act, 1948.
From the evidence it is seen that the appellant establishment is engaged in the business of horse riding. The number of employees are more than the specified number under the ESI Act. Therefore, as per the definition of the word ''shop'' referred to above and the dictionary meaning, it has to be held that the appellant''s establishment is a ''shop''. Hence, I hold that the provisions of the ESI Act are applicable to the appellants'' establishment. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the order passed by the E.I. Court is justified and it does not call for any interference by this Court
In the result, I pass the following order:
i) Appeal is rejected;
ii) No costs.