Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

24. A bare reading of clause (b) of Section 1(3) of the Act reveals that it is most unsatisfactorily punctuated. Had the clause read "establishments employing twenty or more persons, or class of such establishments which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf", it would be apparent that the condition of notification, of the establishment, in the Official Gazette, would apply only to the words "class of such establishments", and would not apply to "establishments employing twenty or more persons". Individual establishments, employing twenty or more persons, would, thereby, be ipso facto covered under the provision, even if they were not notified. On the other hand, had the expression read "establishments employing twenty or more persons, or class of such establishments, which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf", the presence of two commas, one after the words "establishments employing twenty or more persons", and the other after the words "class of such establishments" would indicate that the requirement of notification in the Official Gazette would apply to both the preceding categories of establishments. In other words, in such a case, individual establishments, even if they were employing twenty or more persons, would be subject to the rigour of the clause only if they were notified in the Official Gazette.

25. As things stand, however, there is no comma, in the entire expression "establishments employing twenty or more persons or class of such establishments which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf", as it figures in clause (b) of Section 1 (3) of the Act. That throws up the issue of whether the requirement of notification in the official Gazette applies even to individual establishments employing twenty or more persons - such as Respondent No. 2.