BHANDARI BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. M K SETH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the provisions of the aforesaid Act were not at all applicable and respondent No. 2 could not invoke the jurisdiction of respondent No. 1 for entertaining his claim. It has been argued that petitioner had a project at Iraq which is commercial establishment at Iraq and as respondent No. 2 has rendered services as employee of the said establishment of petitioner at Iraq and thus the said establishment is not covered by the provisions of the Delhi Shops Establishments Act, 1954. The counsel for the petitioner made reference to various provisions of the Act to show that this Act was meant to apply to establishments working in Delhi and could not have any jurisdiction over the establishments which are beyond the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi. I will deal with this point first as it goes to the root of the matter. The counsel For respondent on the other band has argued that respondent No. 2 was employed by the petitioner and thus became employee as understood by the definition of employee given in this act and as respondent No. 2 had rendered service in connection with the business of the petitioner, even though in Iraq, still respondent No. 2 is covered by the provisions of the Act. He has argued that the office being run by the petitioner at Iraq could not be termed as an establishment as such office had no independent business of its own. He has argued that the provisions of the Act should be liberally construed so as to render benefits to the mployees.

(2.) The admitted case of the parties is that respondent No. 2 was employed by the petitioner for being posted at petitioner's office in Iraq for the performance of petitioner's business, i.e., the construction of houses.

(3.) The provisions of the Act leave no room for doubt that they are to apply to the establishments located in Delhi and not to any establishments working outside Delhi. The counsel for the respondent No. 2 has vehemently argued that in order to term any particular office as an establishment it must be shown that the said office is having its own independent business, I am afraid that no such ingredient is to be established. Only thing to be seen is whether a particular office is an .establishment or not and in case that particular establishment is not in Delhi the provisions of this Act would not apply. The office which petitioner was having in Iraq by itself can be termed as an establishment. It cannot be held that mere fact that the business of the petitioner is being carried on from that office so the petitioner's office in Delhi could be treated as an establishment and not petitioner's office at Iraq.