G.L. HOTELS LTD. ETC. versus T.C. SARIN AND ANR.

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 808 · Decided: 25-08-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. SAWANT, YOGESHWAR DAYAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
G.L. HOTELS LTD. ETC. 
v. 
T.C. SARIN AND ANR. 
• 
AUGUST 25, 1993 
B 
[P.B. SAWANT AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.] 
Employee's State Insura11ce Act, 1948/The Fact01ies Act, 1948: Sections 
1(4), 1(5), 2(12), 2(14-AA), 26, 38, 39/2(K)--Employees State Insurance 
I' 
Fund-Conllibutions--'Factory'-'Hotc/'-'Kitchen'-'Manufacturing process' 
C in the fo1111 of cooking and preparing food being canied_ on ill kitchen-Held, 
Kitchell is a facto1y-Activity canied mt in kitchen has connection with ac-
tivities canied 011 in rest of hotel premise;~Kitchen being an integral part of 
hotel-business, e11tire hotel falls within deffriition of facto1y. · 
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 32-136, 226-Special leave petition 
[) agaimt High Cowt judgment-Writ petition against veiy same judgment 
dwi11g pende11cy of SLP.-He/d, not mai11tai11able. 
Inte1pretation of Statutes: Social Welfare Legislations-Inteipretation 
of-Held, expressions like 'facto1y', 'indust1y' cannot be tested on anvil of their 
E conunon usage. 
The Employees' State Insurance Corporation raised a demand for 
contributions from the appellant-hotel for different periods between 1970 
,., 
till 11.11.1978, treating them as factories within the meaning .of the 
Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. The appellants challenged the 
F demand by filing writ petitions before the High Court. However, in view of 
the hotels being treated as 'establishments' and covered by Section 1 (5) of 
the Act from 12.11.1978, there was no dispute with regard to the contribu-
tions payable ou or from that date. The writ petitions were dismissed. The 
appellants Jiled the appeals by special leave. 
G 
The appellants did not dispute before this Court that kitchen is a 
factory for the purpose of the Act. But they contended that the activities 
carried on in the rest of the part of the premises of the hotel must have a 
connection n'ith the activity carried on in the kitchen and since there was 
no such connection, the definition of 'factory' should not be extended to 
H ·the other premises of the hotel. 
808 
' 
G.L. HOTELS v. T.C. SARIN 
809 
One of the hotels whose writ petition was dismissed by the High A 
Court, filed a special leave petition. During the pendencY. of the special 
leave petition, the hotel also filed writ petitions under Article 32 of the 
Constitution against the very same judgment of the High Court. 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. Manufacturing process in the form of cooking and 
preparing food is carried on in the kitchen and the kitchen being a part 
of the hotel or of the precinct of the hotel, the entire hotel falls within the 
purview of the definition of 'factory' given in Section 2(12) of the 
B 
Employees' State insurance Act, 1948. [812-B] 
C 
1.2. Manufacturing activity has a broad connection with the activities 
carried on in the rest of the premises of the hotel. Kitchen is an integral 
part of the hotel-business. Those who occupy a hotel do depend on the food 
and the beverages which are prepared in its kitchen. The lodging and D 
boarding are essential components of the services rendered by the hotel. 
Hence it cannot be denied that the activity in the kitchen has a connection 
with the activities carried on in the rest of the hotel premises. (813-C-D) 
Nagpur Electric Light & Power Co. Ltd. v. Regional Director Employees 
State Insurance Corporation etc., (1967) 3 S.C.R. 921, referred to. 
E 
2. The definition of certain premises as a factory or of certain 
activities as an industry etc. given in social welfare legislations are neces-
sarily artificial and cannot be tested on the anvil of the common usage of 
the terms defined. The object is to extend the welfare coverage to as large 
F 
a section of the individuals as possible. [813-E) 
3. The writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution against the 
very same judgment of the High Court against which special leave petitions 
had been ·filed, are not maintainable. (814-E) 
CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Civil Appel-
late Nos. 1144-45 & 1147 of 1982. 
From the Judgments and Orders dated 30.9.80, 12-11-80 and 18-11-
G 
80 of the Bombay High Court in Appeals Nos. 533, 545 and 546 of 1980. 
H 
810 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A 
AND 
r 
Civil Appeal Nos. 1148-49 of 1982. 
WITH 
Writ Petition (C) Nos. 9728-29 of 1983. 
B 
Soli J Sorabjee, U.A. Rana, Rajiv Tyagi, Ms. Nisha Bagchi and R.F. 
Nariman for the appellants. 
t 
c 
N.N. Goswami, Ms. A. Subhashini an
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.