LIPTON INDIA LTD. ETC.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.
- Citation
- 1996 INSC 828
- Decided
- 6 August 1996
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Holding
The Court disposed of the appeals without a substantive ruling, noting the matter is historical and prosecutions are stale, but affirmed that any current operation falling within Section 7 must be registered.
Summary
Lipton India Ltd. and Brook Bond India Ltd., tea companies, maintained godowns in 1968 where a single salesman opened and closed the premises, loading tea onto a manually‑operated push‑cart for door‑to‑door sales. They sought clarification on whether such premises required registration under Section 7 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948, and were told registration was mandatory, leading to prosecutions. The companies challenged the constitutional validity of the notification and the applicability of the Act to their limited operations. The High Court dismissed the challenge, and on appeal the Court observed that the practice is now obsolete, the prosecutions are stale, and a stay was in force, thus disposing of the appeals without a substantive ruling. However, the Court clarified that if the present mode of operation falls within Section 7, the companies must register and face prosecution for non‑compliance.
Issues considered
- Whether the tea companies' godowns, operated by a single salesman and a labourer using a push‑cart, constitute an "establishment" under Section 7 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948.
- Whether the notification bringing such premises within the ambit of the Act is constitutionally valid.
Legislation cited
Subjects
Judgment
A LIPTON INDIA LTD. ETC.
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.
AUGUST 6, 1996
B [M.M. PUNCHHI AND K. VENKATASWAMY, JJ.j
Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 :
S. 7-Regist:-ation of establishments-Prosecution of Companies on
C failure to get establishment registered-Tea Companies maintaining
godowns/Depots inl968 with-Only one sales-man opening and closing the
godow11/depol for taking out and putting i11 lea packets-Salesman loading
lea in push-can and ojfC1ing sales in the market from door to door-Held,
the practice being in use about three decade back, and there being in operation
stay granted by this Cowt, as also days of push-cmts and their being operated
D manually are gone, the companies would not be prosecuted for alleged lapse
in not having their establislunents registered:-Howeve1~ should the pr~sent
modus operandi still require registration, they would be obliged to do so on
failure of which they would attract proseclltion.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 71-72 of
E 1974.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.12.72 of the Bombay High
Court in Misc. P. No. 621/67 and Special Civil Applicatio~ No. 528of1968.
G.B. Pai, S.K. Dholkia, O.C.Mathur, Ms. Mcera Mathur for J.B.D.
F & Co., P.H. Parekh, Arvind Sharma, D.M. Nargolkar, Ms. J.S. Wad and
Mugul Mudgal for the appearing parties.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
The two appellants before us in these respective appeals are Lipton
G India Ltd. and Brook Bond India Ltd., two well-known companies dealing
in tea. Somewhere in the year 1968, these companies were in doubt as to
whether their upkeep of godowns would bring them within the ambit of the
Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948, in the presence of only one
salesman openin5 and closing the Godown for taking out and putting in
H tea packets. The modus operandi suggested by the companies was that tea·
306
LIPTON INDIA LID. v. STATE 307
was stocked in those godowns depots and a salesman appointed would take A
out tea, load it on a push-cart, manually operated by a labourer and sales
offered in the market from door to door. At the end of the day, the
remainder is brought back and. put in the godown/depot. On these facts,
opinion of the Government was sought by the companies whether they were
required to have their establishments registered under Section 7 of the Act.
B
They were told that they had to, on the failure of which prosecution would
be launched. And as we are told prosecutions were launched.
The twin challenge of the appellants to the constitution validity of
the notification, supposedly bringing them within the ambit of the Act and
the State's view of the matter on the limited activity of the salesman in his c
godown/depot, a pattern adopted throughout the country, failed before the
High Court in writ proceedings which has given rise to these appeals ..
From the lengthy pleadings of the parties and the discussion made
by the High Court, we would be required to put at rest the legal conse-
quences of the limited activity of the salesman. As is plain, the days of D
push-carts and their being operated manually by a labourer are over. The
prosecution of the companies is also stale as nearly three decades are about
to go by. There was- a stay operating, as granted by this Court. In these
circumstances, Mr. Dholkia, learned senior counsel appearing for the
State, is fair enough to state that the companies would not be prosecuted
E
for the alleged lapses in not having their establishments registered under
Section 7 of the Act. In view of this stance, Mr. Pai, learned senior counsel,
states that the pleaded fact situation does not warrant that there should be
a pronouncement as it is part of the past; mobility of goods now being
otherwise than by push-carts. In view of the respective stances adopted, we
close these matters. The appeals shall be taken to have been disposed of. F
It is made clear that should the present modues operandi of the appellants
still requires registration under Section 7 of the Act, they would be obliged
to do so, on the failure of which they would attract prosecutions. No costs.
R.P. Appeals disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.