High CourtsSingle Bench(2001) 06 KAR CK 0076

ITC Infotech India Limited vs Senior Labour Inspector and Another

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 22 June 2001 · Citation: (2001) 3 KCCR 2166

HON’BLE JUDGES
Chandrashekaraiah, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 22745 of 2001

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 327 words

Chandrashekaraiah, J.—The Petitioner is a company registered under Indian Companies Act of 1956 and it is engaged in the business of software development. This establishment operates two separate premises, one being located at Raja Ram Mohan Roy Road and another at Pulikeshinagar post. In respect of both these premises, the Petitioner made an application for grant of license under The Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961. Thereafter, the Petitioner had also paid the required amount for grant of license. On the said payment, the license was granted in respect of the premises situated at Raja Ram Mohan Roy Road. Thereafter, the Petitioner made an application to include the establishment located at Pulikeshinagar, in the licence granted. The said request has been turned down. Therefore, the Petitioner is before this Court.

2.

The contention of the Petitioner is that since the management, in respect of both the establishments is the same, no such license is required in respect of the establishment located at Pulikeshinagar. Section 2(u) defines the word ''shop'' which reads as follows:

2(u) "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 warehouses, 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 fall within the scope of the Factories Act, 1948;

By reading of the said definition, it is clear the word ''shop'' does not include a commercial establishment or a shop attached to a Factory where the persons employed in the shop fall within the scope of the Factories Act, 1948. Therefore, the establishment located at Pulikeshinagar, since, being a separate commercial unit, he is required to take separate license. Therefore, the Respondent is justified in rejecting the request of the Petitioner. Hence, the following order:

Writ Petition is rejected.