SASIDHARAN Vs. PETER AND KARUNAKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IS a firm of lawyers a 'commercial establishment' as defined in the Kerala Shops and Commercial establishments Act, 1960? is the question that falls for consideration in this appeal.

(2.) THE services of the appellant, a clerk in one of the lawyer-firms of this town were terminated on 3-2-1972. He preferred Ext. P1 appeal to the Appellate Authority under the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960. A preliminary objection was raised that the appeal was not maintainable as the respondent was not a'commercial establishment' within the meaning of the Act. THE question was tried as a preliminary issue; and by ext. P7 order the Tribunal held that the firm in question is not a'commercial establishmentunder the Act and that the appeal was therefor ; not competent. On this ground it dismissed the appeal. A learned judge of this Court upheld the view of the Tribunal and dismissed the writ petition to quash Ext. P7. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned judge.

(3.) WE should however refer to the argument strongly pressed before us in the light of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Others v. A. Rajappa & Others (AIR. 1978 SC. 548 ). That was concerned with expounding the meaning of the term'industry ', under the Industrial disputes Act. The definition of the term industry is vide in its sweep. The evolution of this branch of the law , is a matter of familiar knowledge. The decision in the Hospital Mazdoor Sabha's case (AIR. 1960 sc 610) and in Ahamadabad Research Station case (AIR. 1961 SC. 485) were among the earliest of the pronouncements which were understood to have carried the concept of the term'industry ' somewhat beyond the popular or well understood sense of the term. The ratio of these rulings was that the term'industry ' covered any activity systematically or habitually undertaken for the production or distribution of goods or in rendering material service to the community at large or part of such community with the help of employees. But in the National Union of Commercial Employees v. Their Workmen (AIR. 1862 SC. 1082) a different line of reasoning was discernible. It was ruled that a solicitor-firm employing clerks, manual labourers , and even machinery, cannot be regarded as an 'industry'. A Solicitors job, it was pointed out, depended on his professional equipment, knowledge and efficiency, and the mere fact that for his own convenience or efficient transaction of his work, he employed clerks and labourers and machines would not be decisive of the question whether he was carrying on an 'industry'. This aspect was again high- flighted in the Delhi University case (AIR. 1964 SC. 873), the Gymkhana Club case (AIR. 1968 SC. 554), the Cricket Club of India's case (AIR. 1969 SC. 276), and the Safdarjung Hospital's case (AIR 1970 SC. 1407 ). In the last of these cases a full Court of Six Judges of the Supreme Court overruled the decision in Hospital Mazdoor Sabha's case (AIR. 1960 SC. 610 ). WE skip a tew of the pronouncements that followed immediately and come to the recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa (AIR. 1978 SC 548 ). The majority judges overruled the Safdarjung Hospital case and other decisions and rehabilitated the Mazdoor Sabha's case as follows: W. WE overrule Safdarjung (AIR. 1970 SC. 1407; Solicitors' case (AIR. 1962 SC. 1080), Gymkhana (AIR. 1p68 SC. 554), Delhi University (AIR. 1963 SC. 1873 ). Dhanrajgirji Hospital (AIR. 1975 SC. 2032) and other rulings whose ratio runs counter to the principles enunciated above, and hospital Mazdoor Sabha (AIR. 1960 SC. 610) is hereby rehabilitated''. (Page 596)