M/S. KIRLOSKAR CONSULTANTS LTD.versusEMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION

                M/S. KIRLOSKAR CONSULTANTS LTD.                                     A
                                       v.
          EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION

                           NOVEMBER 14, 2000

            [S. RAJENDRA BABU AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.]                                B


        Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948-Expression 'Shop'-Meaning
of-Appellant providing under one roof the services of several professionals
on different fields-Guidance and advice to companies, corporations, boards C
and local authorities on how best to manage their business for optimum
 utilisation of plant, machinery and other infrastructure-ES/ Corporation
communicating to the appellant that it was covered under the provisions of
the Employees' State Insurance Act being a 'shop'-Tenability of-Held, as
the nature of activities carried on by the appellant viz. providing consultancy
 services to its customers, is commercial or economical, the same being offered D
for a price, the appellant's premises could reasonably be said to be a shop--
 The appellant was, thus, covered by the Employees' State Insurance Act-
Section 75-Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948.;•

      The appellant was registered as 'a commercial establishment' under
the provisions of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948. It provided        E
under one roof, the services of serval different professionals like Engineers,
Architects, Financial Consultants and Management Consultants, guidance and
advice to other companies, corporations, boards and even local authorities on
how best to manage their business for optimum utilisation of plant, machinery
and other infrastructure. A letter was sent by the respondent corporation to        F
the appellant stating that it was covered under the provisions of the Employees'
State Insurance Act, 1948. The appellant .started remitting contribution in
respect of its employees as per the provisions of the Act. Thereafter, it filed
an application under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act 1948
before the ESI Court for a declaration that the provisions of the said Act would
not be applicable to it. The E.S.I Court held that the appellant was not covered    G
by the Act.

     Against the Order of the ESI Court, the respondent filed an appeal in
the High Court which was allowed. Hence this appeal.

      On behalf of the appellant , it was contended that the appellant's business   H
                                      591
     592                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A premises cannot be a shop on the analogy that a lawyer's office where advice
    is given by lawyers is not a 'shop' as held by this Court for purposes of Kera la
    Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960; that a place of work cannot
    be regarded as a 'shop' unless the activity conducted is in a 'Shop' ; the
    expression 'shop' means a premises which is used in connection with the
B   trade or business but not when professional service is rendered; that the
    appellant does not carry on any trade or business and appellant's
    establishment cannot be a 'shop'.

          On behalf of the respondent, it was contended that the expression 'shop'
    having been given expanded meaning for purposes of the ESI Act whereunder
C   the expression 'shop' is not defined, the matter is no longer res integra, that
    whenever an establishment carries on activities in the nature of a trade or
    commerce, it must be held that such premises is a 'shop' ; that the nature of
    the activities carried on by the appellant cannot fall outside the scope of the
    expression 'shop' as understood by this Court in several decisfons.

D          Dismissing the appeal, the Court

           HELD: 1. The business carried on by the appellant is of consultancy
    services to its customers in respect of industrial, technical, marketing and
    management activities and preparation of project reports by engaging the
    services of architects, engineers and other experts. In substance, the nature
E   of activities carried on by the appellant is commercial or economical and would
    amount to parting with the same at a price. The appellant's premises, thus,
    could reasonably be said to be a shop. (595-F-G)

           E.S.I. Corpn. v. R.K. Swamy and Ors., (1994) l SCC 445, relied on.

F          V. Sasidharan v. Mis Peter And Karunakar & Ors., [ 1984) 4 SCC 230,
    distinguished.

           HinduJea Bandv. Regional Director, ESIC. (1987) 2SCC101; Cochin
    Shipping Co. v. ES! Corpn., (1992) 4 SCC 245 and International Ore and
    Fertilizers (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. ES! Corporation, (1987) 4 SCC 203, referred
G   to.

           Dattatraya Advertising Co. Ltd v. £.S./. Corpn., ( 1956) LLN 346, cited.

           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4668 of 1995.

H          From the Judgment and Order dated 12.8.94 of the Bombay High Court
  KIRLOSKARCONSULTANTS LTD. v. E.S.I. COPRN. [RAJENDRA BABU,J.]               593
in F.A. No. 789of1987.                                                               A
     Raju Ramachandran, Uttam Datt and Ms. Meenakshi Arora for the
Appellant.

      Vijay K. Mehta for the Respondent.
                                                                                     B
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

       RAJENDRA BABU, J. The appellant before us provides under a roof,
the services of several different professionals like Engineers, Architects,
Financial Consultants and Management Consultants, guidance and advice to
other companies, corporations, boards and even local authorities on how best         C
to manage their business for optimum utilization of plant, machinery and other
infrastructure. The appellant is registered as "a commercial establishment"
under the provisions of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act. An
application was filed by the applicant under Section 75 of the Employees'
State Insurance Act, 1948 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] before the ESI      D
Court, Pune for a declaration that the provisions of the said Act would not
be applicable to the appellant, pursuant to a letter sent by the respondent
stating that it was covered under the provisions of the Act w.e.f. 31.7.76. From
that letter it was assumed that it was a shop for purposes of the applicability
of the Act. The appellant started remitting contribution in respect of its
employees as per the provisions of the Act. It was contended before the E.S.I        E
Court that the appellant has not carried on any process of manufacture and
hence is not a factory much less work carried on by it on the premises could
make it a shop.

      The respondent pleaded that the appellant is engaged in the consultancy
services in technical and marketing fields for a price and it is a shop. The E.S.I   F
Court after noticing that the appellant's establishment is a commercial
establishment doing consultancy service in respect of marketing, management,
technical and industrial establishment, observed that a shop does not include
a premises where intellectual advice is tendered and, therefore, the appellant
is not covered by the Act. To reach this conclusion, it relied upon the              G
decision of the High Court in Dattatraya Advertising Co. Ltd. v. E.S.l. Corpn.,
(1956) LLN 346.

      Against the order of the ESI Court the respondent filed an appeal under
the Act. in the High Court. The High Court, on the basis of ratio of the
decision in E.S.I. Corpn. v. R.K. Swamy and Ors., [ 1994] I SCC 445, held that       H
     594                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A the word 'shop' has acquired an expanded meaning to cover a premises where
     the advertising agency sells its expert services to a client to enable the client
     to launch an effective advertising campaign for his product, and in the same
     manner premises where consultancy service is provided is also a 'shop' and
     appeal of respondents was allowed. Hence this appeal.

B          Shri Raju Ramchandran, learned senior Advocate for the appellant,
    relying upon a decision of this court in V. Sasidharan v. Mis. Peter And
    Karunakar & Ors., [1984) 4 SCC 230, contended that the appellant's business
    premises cannot be a shop on the analogy that a lawyer's office where advice
     is given by lawyers is not a 'shop' as held by this Court for purposes of
C   Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960. He emphasized that
    a place of work can not be regarded as a 'shop' unless the activity conducted
    is in a 'shop'. He submitted that the expression 'shop' means a premises
    which is used in connection with the trade or business, but not when
    professional service is rendered. He emphasised that the appellant does not
    carry on any trade or business and contended that the appellant's establishment
D   can not be a 'shop'. He also submitted that the decision of this Court in R.K.
    Swamy's case is in conflict with the decision in Sasidharan's case and therefore,
    the matter has to be considered by a larger bench.

           Shri Vijay Kumar Mehta, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted
E   that in the light of the several decisions of this Court where the expression
    'shop' having been given expanded meaning for purposes of the ESI Act,
    whereunder the expression 'shop' is not defined the matter is no longer res
    integra. Nor is 'shop' defined as has been done in the Kerala Shops and
    Commercial Establishment Act. He, therefore, submitted that it is unnecessary
    to refer the matter to a larger bench as there is no conflict between the views
F   expressed in the decision in Sasidharan 's case and the decision in R.K.
    Swamy 's case.

          He also submitted that whenever an establishment carries on activities
    in the nature of a trade or commerce, it must be held that such premises is
G   a 'shop' in the light of the judgments rendered by this court giving an
    expanded meaning to the word 'shop'. He also submitted that on the facts
    of this case, it is clear that the appellant is engaged in several activities
    including advice to its clients in respect of industrial, technical, marketing and
    management activities. It is submitted that the nature of the activities carried
    on by the appellant cannot fall outside the scope of the expression 'shop'
H   as understood by this court in several decisions.
      KIRLOSKARCONSULTANTS LTD. v. E.S.l.COPRN. [RA.IENDRA BABU,J.] 595

          This court in Sasidharan 's case was concerned with the interpretation       A
    ofKerala Shops & Commercial Establishments Act, 1960, wherein Section 2(4)
    defines 'commercial establishment' and Section 2(15) defines 'shop'. In that
    case, therefore, this court had to find out whether the activities carried on in
    a lawyer's office fall within the definitions in Sections 2(4) and 2(15) of the
    said Act. Thus, this court was not concerned with the meaning attributed to        B
    a shop arising in ESI Act. It was held that lawyers do not carry on trade or


-   business nor render service to customers but carry on a profession and
    therefore cannot fall within the scope of that Act.

          Reference may be made to a decision of this court in Hindu Jea Band
    v. Regional Director, ES/C, [1987) 2 SCC IOI, and in that case the premises        C
    in which services for rendering music is given is held to be a 'shop'; so was
    the decision in Cochin Shipping Co. v. ES/ Corpn., [1992) 4 SCC 245, wherein
    it was held that regardless of the fact that the steamship company is not
    carrying on stevedoring operations, it is a shop. Further, in the case of
    International Ore and Fertilizers (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. ES/ Corporation, [1987)
    4 sec 203, the premises was held to be a shop even where activities relating       D
    to sale of goods do not take place but negotiations for the terms of sale,
    carrying on of the survey of the goods imported, is done.

           What we are concerned in the present case is what this court was
    concerned in R.K. Swamy 's case. An advertising agency organises campaigns         E
    by conducting the same in different media and would give advice in this
    behalf and also in regard to possible expenses. It is also engaged in preparing
    and presenting alternate campaigns and for such a purpose it prepares artwork
    and appropriate slogans to go with it. By engaging the service of experts in
    different fields the advertising agency would prepare the campaign for
    customers and sells the campaign by receiving the price thereof. As the            F
    advertising agency sells its expert services to a client to enable him to launch
    an advertising campaign to advertise his product, the same being offered for
    at a price, the premises of an advertising agency could reasonably be said
    to be a shop. Adopting the same logic, we may !;ay that the business carried
    on by the appellant is of consultancy services to its customers in respect of      G
    industrial, technical, marketing and management activities and preparation of
    project reports by engaging the services of architects, engineers and other
    experts. In substance, the nature of activities carried on by the appellant is
    commercial or economical and would amount to parting with the same at a
    price. Hence reliance on Sasidharan 's case is misplaced. Th1,1s, we do not find
    any good reason to differ from the view expressed by the High Court.               H
    596                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A         Hence, this appeal stands dismissed. However, in the circumstances,
    the parties shall bear their respective costs.

    M.P.                                                   Appeal dismissed.