2009 (4) TMI 920 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved: Whether the Turf Clubs are covered by the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (ESI Act).

The Supreme Court considered the question of whether Turf Clubs are covered by the ESI Act. It was noted that not all establishments are automatically covered by the Act, but only those mentioned in the notification issued by the appropriate Government u/s 1(5) of the Act. The Court observed that the term 'shop' used in the notifications is pivotal, and previous judgments have classified Turf Clubs as shops based on common interpretations. However, the Court expressed disagreement with this classification, stating that a club is not commonly considered a shop. The lack of a specific definition of 'shop' in the Act or notifications led the Court to interpret it based on common understanding, which does not align with the nature of a racing club. The Court emphasized that only establishments notified u/s 1(5) are covered by the Act, contrary to the presumption made in previous judgments.

The Court also addressed the reliance placed on a previous judgment regarding the definition of 'industry' in the Industrial Disputes Act. It was highlighted that definitions of terms like 'industry' or 'factory' vary across different labor laws, and applying a definition from one Act to another is not appropriate unless explicitly stated. The Court emphasized the need for consistency in interpreting statutory definitions and suggested that the decision classifying Turf Clubs as shops should be reviewed by a larger Bench. Until a reconsideration is made, the Court directed that no demands should be raised against the appellant-clubs. The matter was referred to the Chief Justice of India for the constitution of an appropriate Bench for further deliberation.