1978 (11) TMI 168 - HC - Indian Laws

Challenged conviction u/s 394 (1)(e)(i) r/w Section 471 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act - Interpretation of the term catering establishment - Expression eating house - Whether a staff canteen was open to the public or restricted only to a section of the public it would still fall within the definition of a catering establishment - HELD THAT - It may be pointed out that so far as the Factories Act was concerned the provisions therein as also the Rules made thereunder were meant for the protection of the workers and with a view to benefit them. So far as the provisions of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act were concerned they are enacted according to the Statement of Objects and Reasons of that Act for the purpose of seeing that certain trades are not carried out in a dangerous manner or are likely to create a nuisance or to endanger life. It therefore cannot be stated that the provisions of the two Acts overlap each other. Assuming however that the purpose of the two Acts was similar even then there could be no reason why an obligation cast upon a party to obtain a licence under the provisions of one of such Acts should not be complied with. I therefore see no substance in this argument of Mr. Shrikrishna. The learned Magistrate was justified in convicting Accused No. 2 under S. 394 (1) (e) (i) read with Section 471 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act and in sentencing Accused No. 2 to the minimum penalty thereunder. The Petition is therefore dismissed and the Rule discharged. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Conviction under Section 394 (1) (e) (i) read with Section 471 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act.
2. Interpretation of the term "catering establishment" and its application in the case.
3. Comparison of provisions of the Factories Act with the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner challenged his conviction under Section 394 (1) (e) (i) read with Section 471 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. The petitioner, a caterer running a canteen in a factory, was found guilty for not obtaining a license required under the Act. The Metropolitan Magistrate convicted the petitioner and imposed a fine of Rs. 200/-.

2. The key issue revolved around whether the staff canteen operated by the petitioner qualified as a "catering establishment." The defense argued that since the canteen was restricted to company employees and not open to the public, it did not fall under the definition of an "eating house" or a "catering establishment." However, the court clarified that the term "catering establishment" has a broader scope than "eating house" and encompasses establishments providing food, regardless of public access.

3. The defense further contended that as per the Factories Act, the employer of a factory with over 250 workers must provide a canteen, which must operate on a no-profit basis. It was argued that since the canteen was run for profit, it did not qualify as a catering establishment. The court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the petitioner conducted the canteen for profit, distinct from the employer's obligations under the Factories Act.

4. Lastly, the defense claimed that the provisions of the Factories Act adequately regulated canteens, making the licensing requirement under the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act redundant. The court disagreed, stating that the purposes of the two Acts were distinct, with the Factories Act focusing on worker welfare and the BMC Act aiming to regulate trades to prevent hazards. The court upheld the conviction, emphasizing the petitioner's obligation to obtain a license under the BMC Act.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition, affirming the conviction under Section 394 (1) (e) (i) read with Section 471 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, and upheld the imposed penalty.