SECRETARY THE PENNINGTON COMMITTEE VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT Vs. COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR WELFARE BOARD CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the Secretary of the Pennington Committee. THE petitioner/Committee is running a library called Pennington Public Library in Srivilliputtur. THEy have also constructed an auditorium and in that building they are also maintaining books and magazines. Shops were also constructed and let out for rent, which is known as Pennington Market. THE said club is maintained by collecting subscriptions from its members. THE District Collector is the Ex-Officio President of the Committee. THE Committee has been in existence for the last 125 years. For the purpose of maintaining their activities and for the administration of the Committee and its property, they are engaging employees.

(2.) ON 27.3.1999, the Assistant Labour Officer, Srivilliputhur sent an inspection report stating that after his inspection made on 24.3.1999, he found that the Committee is not following the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, 1947 (for brevity, "the Shops Act") as well as the National Festival and Holidays Act and Minimum Wages Act, 1948. According to the Assistant Inspector of Labour, the activities of the petitioner/Committee will fall under the term "establishment" as defined under Section 2(6) of the Shops Act.

(3.) THE arguments made by the petitioner were dealt with threadbare by the Commissioner of Labour and he came to the conclusion that it is also an "establishment" within the meaning of Section 2(6) of the Shops Act. Strong reliance was placed by the petitioner/Committee upon the judgment of this Court in Catholic Centre Staff Union v. Archbishop of Madras, 1962 II LLJ 115. In that case, the employees attached to the Catholic Centre formed an association and claimed certain benefits from the management of the Catholic Centre. THEy also moved an application before the Commissioner of Labour seeking for a declaration that the provisions of the Shops Act will apply to the Catholic Centre. THE contention was that the Catholic Centre is having a club with billiards and indoor games, reading room, library, hostel for students and auditorium, similar to that of the petitioner herein. But the Commissioner refused to cover the provisions of the Shops Act to the said Centre and held that the Shops Act will not apply to the employees engaged by the Catholic Centre. THE Union filed the writ petition. This Court rejecting the writ petition held that the institution will not be covered by the definition of Commercial Establishment or an establishment or a residential hostel or restaurant. However, in the case on hand, the authority after noting the said judgment held that the facts found in Catholic Centre case will not apply to the case of the petitioner/ Committee and the activities carried on by the petitioner/Committee are commercial in nature and therefore, the reliance placed upon the judgment was negatived.