9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) is a "commercial establishment" under Section 2(5) of the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Definition and Scope of "Commercial Establishment": The primary issue was whether the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) qualifies as a "commercial establishment" under Section 2(5) of the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954. The Act defines "commercial establishment" as any premises wherein any trade, business, or profession or any work in connection with, or incidental or ancillary thereto is carried on. This includes societies registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and charitable or other trusts carrying on any business, trade, or profession or work in connection with or incidental thereto. 2. Activities and Objectives of the Federation: The Federation is a company registered under Section 26 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913. Its primary objectives include promoting Indian business in various sectors, encouraging friendly relations among the business community, securing organized action on business matters, disseminating commercial and economic knowledge, and providing arbitration services. The Federation's activities also include conducting national and international exhibitions, setting up museums or showrooms, and securing the interests of Indian business communities abroad. 3. Legal Proceedings and Contentions: The Chief Inspector of Shops and Establishments, Delhi, directed the Federation to register under the Act, which the Federation contested, claiming it was not an "establishment" as defined in Section 2(9) of the Act. The High Court ruled in favor of the Federation, stating that its premises were not a "commercial establishment." The appellants argued that the Federation's activities amounted to a profession or business, while the Federation maintained that its activities were of general utility and predominantly charitable. 4. High Court's Findings: The High Court dismissed the contention that the Federation's activities constituted a profession, noting that advice was tendered in the interest of trade and business in general, not for any specific consideration. The court also rejected the argument that the Federation's activities amounted to work incidental or ancillary to trade or business, emphasizing that the definition referred to specific business or trade carried on in premises. 5. Supreme Court's Analysis: The Supreme Court examined the scheme and relevant provisions of the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954. It noted that the definition of "commercial establishment" is broader than that of "shop" and includes premises where any trade, business, or profession is carried on. The Court referred to a previous decision in R.K. Mittal's case, which held that the Federation's activities were in the nature of business or trade. 6. Appellants' and Respondents' Arguments: The appellants relied on the R.K. Mittal case to argue that the Federation's activities constituted business or trade. The respondents contended that the Federation's activities were primarily charitable and of general utility, with income derived solely from subscriptions and occasional exhibitions, which were incidental to its primary charitable objectives. They also argued that the definition of "industry" in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was broader than that of "commercial establishment" in the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954. 7. Supreme Court's Conclusion: The Supreme Court overruled the preliminary objection that the appellants should not be allowed to raise new contentions. It held that the Federation's activities, including systematic assistance to members and non-members, arbitration services, and publication of periodicals and bulletins, constituted business activities. The Court affirmed that a systematic activity could be a business activity even if no dividends were declared or profits shared. It concluded that the Federation's premises were a "commercial establishment" within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. Judgment: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and dismissed the writ petition. No order as to costs was made.
|
