V. SASIDHARAN versus PETER & KARUNAKAR & ORS.

Citation: [1985] 1 S.C.R. 601 · Decided: 23-08-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1 
\ 
• 
• 
• 
- • 
• 
601 
V. SASIDHARAN 
v. 
PETER & KARUNAKAR & ORS. 
23rd August, 1984 
[Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J. AND V.D. TULZAPURKAR, J.] 
Shops & Establishments Act !960 (Kerela_ Act). Sec. 2(4)-Firm of Lawyers 
-Whether a commercial establishment. 
The appellant preferred an appeal to the App;!liate Authority under the 
Kerela Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960 (For short. !he A.ct) 
against his dismissal from service by respondent No. 1, a firm of Lawyers. 
Respondent No. 1 raised a preliminary objection that the appeal was not main-
tainable since Respondent No. I firm was not a commercial establishment under 
.-
the Act. The Appellate Authority upheld the preliminary objection and dismis-
sed the appeai. His writ PetiLion and Letters Patent Appeal in the High Court 
against the judgment of the Appellate Authority were also dismissed. 
Hcoc;e 
this appeal by special leave. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : (1) The question whether respondent No. 1-firm is a commer-
cial establishment must naturally depend upon the definition of that expression 
and the definition of cognate expressions which are contained in the Act. The 
definition of "commercial establishment" contained in sec.2(4) of the Act may 
be simplified by restating it in separate clauses as follows : (1) Commercia! 
Establishment ln_eans five different kinds of establishtne"nts ; commercial, 
industrial, trading, banking or insurance ; (2) Commercial Establishment means 
an establishment or admin!strative service in which the persons employed 
are mainly engaged in office work ; (3) Commercial Establishment means 
a hotel, restaurant, boarding or eating house, a cafe or any other refreshment 
house ; (4) Commercial Establishment means a theatre or any other place of 
public atnusement or entertainment ; and (5) Commercial Establishment 
includes such other establishment as the Government may, by notification in 
the Gazette. declare to be a commercial establishment for the purposes of the 
Act. Commercial Establishment does not include a factory to which any of the 
provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 apply. Section 2(8) defines 'establishment' 
to mean a shop or a commercial establishment. The definition of shop contained 
in sec. 2(15) shows that in order that an establishment can be regarded as a shop 
it is necessary that some trade or business must be carried on there or some 
service must be rendered to 'customers'. The expression 'shop also includes 
offices, warehouses, store rooms or godowns which are used in connection with 
the trade or business· [30H ; 603H, 605A, D-G]. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
F 
G 
H 
602 
SUPREME COlJRT REPORTS 
[!985J ! S.C.R. 
(2) A lawyer's office or the office of a firm of lawyers cannot obviously fall 
under clauses (3) and (4) of section 2(4). Nor has the Government issued any 
notification as contemplated t-y section 2(4). The ques:.tion thus narrows itself 
into whether a lawyer's office falls under either of the first two clauses. Since by 
the definition contained in the first clause of section 2(4), a 'commercial establishM 
ment means an establishment, a place of work cannot be regarded as a 
comm::rcial establishment unless the activity is conducted in a 'shop' or in a 
comn1ercial establishment, which is really tautological. 
\Vhatever may be the 
popular conception regarding the role of today's lawyer-; and the alleged 
narrowing of the gap between a profession on one hand and a trade or business 
on the other, it is trite that, traditionally, lawyers do not carry on a trade 
or business nor do they render services to 'customers'. The context as well as 
the phraseology of the definition in section 2(15) is inapposite in the case of a 
lawyer's office or the office of a firm of lawyers. Therefore, the office of a 
lawyer or of a firm of lawyers is not a shop within the meaning of sec. 2(15) of 
the Act. [605C, F-G] 
(3) The argument, that a lawyer's office is a com1nercial establishment 
because, persons who are employed in that office arc n1ainly engaged in office 
work, cannot be sustained. This argument overlooks that (i) under the second 
clause of the definition in section 2(4), 'com1nercial establishment' 1neans "an 
establishment or administrativ• service in which the persons e111ployed are 
mainly engaged in office work" and thus the same question arises again as to 
whether a lawyer's office is an "e<>tablishment' within the meaning of the Act ; 
and (ii) that a lawyer's

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