1962 (10) TMI 88 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the godown is a commercial establishment within the meaning of the Punjab Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958.
2. Whether the petitioner sold tea at the godown.
3. Whether the petitioner is exempt from the provisions of the Act due to the intermittent nature of his work.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the godown is a commercial establishment within the meaning of the Punjab Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958:

The petitioner argued that the godown was not a commercial establishment as defined by the Act. The Act defines a "commercial establishment" as any premises wherein any business, trade, or profession is carried on for profit. The court examined the functions of the godown, noting that it primarily served as a storage facility and a place for maintaining accounts. No actual selling or business deals took place at the godown. The court concluded that the godown did not meet the definition of a commercial establishment because the primary business activities, such as selling tea, occurred outside the godown. The court emphasized that for premises to be considered a commercial establishment, there must be an integrated trade or business activity carried on for profit within those premises. Therefore, the court held that the godown was not a commercial establishment under the Act.

2. Whether the petitioner sold tea at the godown:

The petitioner contended that no sale of tea took place at the godown and that the tea packet was sent to the customer through a coolie. Both the Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge found that no sale occurred at the godown. The court upheld this finding, noting that the primary business activities, including sales, took place outside the godown. The court observed that the petitioner's conviction was based on the fact that he opened the godown before the prescribed hours and conducted some business activities, such as drawing up a voucher. However, since no actual sale occurred at the godown, this contention was dismissed.

3. Whether the petitioner is exempt from the provisions of the Act due to the intermittent nature of his work:

The petitioner argued that his work was inherently intermittent and, therefore, he was exempt from the provisions of the Act under Clause (g) of Section 3. The court noted that this contention would only be relevant if the petitioner was considered an employee in a shop or a commercial establishment. Since the court held that the godown was neither a shop nor a commercial establishment, it found it unnecessary to examine this argument further. The court also noted that the petitioner's counsel was not serious about this argument.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the godown was neither a shop nor a commercial establishment under the Act. Consequently, the petition for revision was allowed, and the orders of the Additional Sessions Judge and the Magistrate were set aside. The fine, if paid, was ordered to be refunded. The judgment was concurred by all the judges involved in the case.