Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.33 seconds)
Indian Tobacco Co. Ltd vs Industrial Court on 23 February, 1994 cites

Ashok Service Centre & Another Etc vs State Of Orissa on 18 February, 1983

9.As its preamble suggests, the Shops Act is an Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to the regulation of conditions of work and employment in shops, commercial establishments, residential hotels, restaurants, eating houses, theaters, other places of public amusement or entertainment and other establishments. Section 2(8) goes to define the word 'establishment'. There is no provision in the Act so as to fix any limit as to the number of persons working in an establishment, which means a shop or a commercial establishment too, conditions of which would be regulated regarding their work and employment. Illustratively, it may be noted from the definition of 'commercial establishments' that it may be manned by a sole legal practitioner and likewise a 'shop' by a sole merchant. Now adverting to Section 38-B, what is significant to note is that by means of that provision the Standing Orders Act, in its application to the State of Maharashtra brings along therewith its brood of rules and standing orders, including the model standing orders, made thereunder from time to time as a package, and mutatis mutandis applying to all establishments to which the Shops Act applies by a legal fiction as if those establishments were industrial establishments within the meaning of the Standing Orders Act. The contention on behalf of the appellant is that when by virtue thereof every establishment wherein 100 or more workmen are employed 487 or were employed on any day in the preceding 12 months, or of a lesser number under the proviso thereto when the appropriate Government notifies and specifies so to a particular industrial establishment a number less than 100 persons, the establishment of the appellant covered under the Shops Act fictionally becomes an industrial establishment under the Standing Orders Act, and afortiori it being an establishment having only 7 persons in employment at the relevant time, neither the Standing Orders Act nor the standing orders framed thereunder had any application to govern the relationship of the appellant with the second respondent. To put it plainly, it is suggested that the 3 months' period of probation as prescribed under the standing orders could not apply to regularize the services of the respondent. Stress has been laid on the expression mutatis mutandis employed in Section 38-B to contend that the meaning thereto according to Legal Dictionaries being "with the necessary changes in points of detail meaning that matters or things are generally the same, but to be altered when necessary" as to names, offices and the like, as adopted by this Court in Ashok Service Centre v. State of Orissa' ,establishments' under the Shops Act become 'industrial establishments' of employees only when numbering 100 (unless lessened under the proviso) and above, and when the number fell short the Standing Orders Act does not apply.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 63 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document
1