THE BANGALORE TURF CLUB LTD. versus REGIONAL DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION

Citation: [2014] 8 S.C.R. 1021 · Decided: 31-07-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.L. DATTU · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 8 S.C.R. 1021 
THE BANGALORE TURF CLUB LTD. 
v. 
REGIONAL DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEES STATE 
INSURANCE CORPORATION 
(Civil Appeal No. 2416 of 2003) 
JULY 31, 2014 
[H.L. DATTU, R.K. AGRAWAL AND ARUN MISHRA, JJ.] 
EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE ACT, 1948: 
A 
B 
c 
s. 1 (5) - 'Establishment' - 'shop' - Turf Club - Held: A 
'shop' is a business establishment where a systematic or 
organised commercial activity takes place with regard to the 
sale or purchase of goods or services, and includes an 
establishment that facilitates these transactions as well - An 
D 
establishment being a place of business and a shop being a 
business establishment, it can be said that a 'shop' is indeed 
covered under, and may be called a sub-set of the term 
'establishment' -- The activities of appellant-Turf Clubs are in 
the nature of organised and systematic transactions --
E 
Appellants-Turf Clubs, in essence, take money from viewers, 
members as well as the general public, as admission fee and 
in return provide them with certain services, those being the 
actual viewing of the race and facilitating placing of bets --
Thus, a race-club, of the nature of appellants, would fall under 
F 
the scope of the term 'shop' and thereby the provisions of ES/ 
Act would extend upon them by virtue of the respective 
impugned notifications issued under sub-s. (5) of s. 1 -
Therefore, it is held (i) a 'race-club' is an 'establishment' as 
rightly held in the case of Employees State Insurance 
Corporation v. Hyderabad Race Club; and (ii) Appellant-Turf G 
Clubs are duly covered under the term 'shop' for the purposes 
of ES/ Act and notifications issued thereunder -- Government 
of Tamil Nadu Notification No. l/(2)/LE/1859176 dated 
1021 
H 
1022 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2014] 8 S.C.R. 
A 03.04.1976 - Government of Maharashtra Notification No. ES/. 
167713910/PH-15 dated 18.09.1978. 
s. 1 - 'Entertainment' - Horse racing - Held: Is a form of · 
entertainment -- Such an entertainment is provided not only 
8 
to the members of the appellant-Clubs, but also to the 
general public on payment of a certain admission fee. 
s. 1 (5) - 'Establishment' - 'shop' - Chit Fund - Held: In 
light of the fact that appellant-Chit Fund provides for seNices 
and in return the foreman receives a commission, there 
C existing a systematic commercial activity and a rendering of 
seNices taking place, activities of Chit Fund would be those 
as would fall um:Jer the definition of a shop as evolved by the 
Court -- Therefore, in accordance with the reasoning if] Civil 
Appeal No.2416 of 2003 and other connected appeals, 
D appellant chit fund would fall within the meaning of the word 
'shop' as mentioned in the notification issued under ES/ Act 
-- Therefore, provisions of ES/ Act would extend to appellant 
also - Government of Tamil Nadu Notification No. 11(2)/LEI 
1859176 dated 03.04.1976. 
E 
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES: 
Statutes pari materia -- Maharashtra Shops and 
Establishments Act, 1948, Kamataka Shops and Commercial 
Establishments Act, 1961 and ES/ Act--Held: Statutes are 
F said to be in pari materia with each other when they deal with 
the same subject-matter -- The rationale behind this rule is 
based on the interpretative assumption that words employed 
in legislations are used in an identical sense --However, this 
assumption is rebuttable by the context of the statutes -- ES/ 
G Act, the Act, 1948 and the Act, 1961 deal with labour and 
workmen, in essence and spirit they have a different scope 
and application -- The Acts do not appear to have any overlap· 
in their fields of operation and have mutually exclusive 
schemes -- Therefore, it cannot be said that the said Acts are 
H pari materia with each other. 
THE BANGALORE TURF CLUB LTD. v. REGIONAL 1023 
DIRECTOR, ESI CORPORATION 
Liberal and beneficial interpretation -- Beneficial 
A 
legislation for welfare of workmen and employees -- Held: In 
the case of beneficial legislations and legislations enacted for 
welfare of employees and workmen, Court has on numerous 
occasions adopted liberal rule of interpretation to ensure that 
the benefits extend to those workers who need to be covered 
based on the intention of the Legislature -- Since ES/ Act is 
passed for conferring certain benefits to employees in case 
B 
of sickness, maternity and employment injury, it is necessary 
that ES/ Act should receive a liberal and beneficial 
construction so as to achieve legislative purpose without c 
doing violence to the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.