LexDR. DEVENDRA M. SURTI versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c • D E F G H DR. DEVENDRA M. SURTI v. STATE OF GUJARAT May 2, 1968 [V. R.AMAsWAMI AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.J Bombay Shops and Establishm.ents Act, 79 of 1948, s. 2(4) Rul•· 23(1)-Doctor's dispensary whether a commercial establishment as. defined in s. 2(4)-Non-nzaintenance of register of employees under- r. 23(l)whether an off.ence. The. appellant, a medical practitioner \Vho also maintained a disPen~· sary, was prosecuted for non-maintenance of a register of employees as required by r. 23 (I) of the rules made under the Bombay Shops arul' Establishments Act, 1948. He contended that he could not be prosecuted' because his dispenSary was not a 'commercial establishment' as defined' ins. 2(4) of the Act. He was acquitted by the trial magistrate but the High Court. on appeal by the State oonvicted him. In appeal by special' leave to this Court, HELD: Section. 2(4) has used words of very wide import and' grammatically it may even include· the consulting room where a doctor examines his patients with the help of a solitary nurse. or attendant. But the language of s. 2(4) must be construed on the principle noscitur a sociis. i.e. when two or more words susceptible of analogous meaning are coupled together the words take their colour from each other and the more general are restricted to a sense analogous to less general. [240 A-C] The word~· 'commercial establishment' and 'profession' in s. 2(4) are used along with the words 'business and trade' and must therefore be restricted to activity analogous to business or trade. Professional activity cannot be treated as \Vithin the definition of s. 2 ( 4) unless it is. organised as trade and business are organised i.e. the activity as systematicalJy or habitually undertaken for rendering material services to the community at large or a part of such community with the help of the employees and such an activity generally involves cooperation of the employer and the employees. [244 C-El Tested in the light of these principles the appellant did not fall with-· in the purview of the Act and his conviction was illegal. [244 E-F] The National Union of Con1mercial Employees and Anr. v. M. R. Meher, Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, [1962] Supp, 3 S.C.R. i57, relied' on.. Reed v. Ingham. 3 E.-B 889, Scales v. Pickering, (1828) 4 Bing. 448, 452, 453, McKay v. Rutherfurd, 6 Moore P.C. 425, Commissioners of Inland Revenue v. Maxse, [1919] I K.B. 647, 657 and William Esp/en, Son, and Swainston Ld. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, [1919]' 2 KB. 731, referred to. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 1966. Appeal from the judgment and order dated February 14, 1966 of the Gujarat High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 208 of 1964. . 236 SUPREME COl.'RT REPORTS [ 1969] I S.C.R. S. T. Desai, Arun H. Mehta and I. N. Shroff, for lhc appel- lant. R. H. Dhebar and M. S. K. Sastri, for the rcsPondcnt. , The Judgment' of the Coun was delivered by Ramaswami, J.-The question involved in this app:al is as to whether a Doctor's dispensary is a "Commercial E.stablish- ment" within the meaning of the Bombay Shops and Establish- ments Act, 1948 (Bombay Act LXXIX of 1948), hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant was a doctor having his dispensary situated near Jakaria Masjid at Ahmcdabad. The dispensary is registered as a 'Commercial Establishment' under the provisions of the Act. The complainant Shri Patel visited the dispensary on June 13, 1963 at about 9.50 a.m. ;ind found that though the dispensary was registered as 'Commercial Establishment' under the Act, the Register produced before him at the time of his visit was not maintained as required under Rule 23 ( 1) of the Rules framed under the Act. Necessary re- marks were made by the complainant in the Visit Book of the dispensary. Thereafter, a complaint was filed against the appel- lant aft:~r obtainin.g >anction for his prosecution under s. 52(e) -Of the Act read with s. 62 of !he Act and r. 23 (I) of lhc Rules. The case was contested by the appellant on the ground that the doctor's dispensary was not a "Commercial Establishment" with- in the meaning of the Act and the provisions of the Act did not therefore apply to his dispensary and the appellant had not com- mitted any offence. The City Magistrate (First Court), (Muni- dpal), Ahmedabad held that the appellant was not guilty and
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.