Silver Storm Amusement Parks Pvt. Ltd. vs Enforcement Officer, Employees'' Provident Fund, Thrissur and another

V.K. Bali, C.J.—The appellant, a private limited company, is aggrieved of its coverage under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. Its challenge to coverage, however, fizzled out before the learned Single Judge as the writ petition filed for such relief was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 15th July, 2003.

The contention raised before the learned Single Judge as also before us is that the appellant would not be covered by the notification dated 3.5.1963 and if that be so, the appellant would not be covered under the provisions of the Act aforesaid notification dated 3.5.1963 reads as follows:

Theatres where dramatic performances or other forms of entertainment are hold and where payment is required to be made for admission as audience or spectators.

Societies clubs or associations which provides board or lodging or both or facility for amusement or any other service to any of their members or to any of their guests on payment.

Companies, societies, associations, clubs or troupes which give any exhibition of acrobatic or other performances or both in any arena circular or otherwise or perform or permit any other form of entertainment in any place other than a theatre and require payment for admission into such exhibition or entertainment as spectators or audience.

There is no dispute that the first two clauses of the notification would not be applicable. The learned Single Judge, however, has held that amusement parks would come within Clause (3) of the notification of the year 1963. The learned Counsel for the appellant, however, contends that the Legislature while issuing notification way back in the year 1963 could not envisage establishment of amusement parks which came into being for later and, therefore, the amusement park cannot be said to be a place for entertainment which could be covered under Clause (3) of the notification of the year 1963. The next contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that Clause (3) of the notification deals with establishments other than theatres which requires payment for admission as spectators or audience to exhibition of acrobatic or other performances or other form of entertainment. It did not visualize or envisage a venture where visitors derive enjoyment by personal participation.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant, but we find no merit in either of the contentions made by him as noted above. The Legislature in its wisdom, in Clause (3) of the notification has covered an arena where entertainment takes place and for which there may be entry/admission too. It is not necessary that a particular or specific place which may provide entertainment must be in existence at a time when law is enacted. It our considered view, any place for entertainment for which admission fee to the person who wants to be entertained is charged could be covered by Clause (c) irrespective of the fact that such place of entertainment may not be under contemplation at the time when law was enacted. The other contention of the learned Counsel is equally hollow. The test for coverage is where spectators or audience may be required to pay admission fee. The test for coverage in our considered view, is a place of entertainment where entry is admissible by admission fee irrespective of as to whether persons who seek entry are spectators or audience or where persons may seek enjoyment by personal participation.

We find no merit in this appeal and, thus dismissed the same. Costs are however made easy.