RADHEY SHYAM AGARWAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question referred to this Bench is whether the opinion expressed in Abid Ali v. State, 1958 All L. J. 333 that the expression "employer" in Section 2(6) of the U. P. Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1947 contemplates an owner of a shop who has engaged some employees to help him in running Ms business, is legally sound.

(2.) Section 2(6) of the U. P. Shops and Commercial Establishments Act (U. P. Act XXII of 1947) defines "employer" in these terms:

(3.) The charge against the applicant was that he had kept his shop open on a Sunday which was notified to be 'close day' by the District Magistrate. His defence was that he had not employed any person as servant or agent in his shop to carry on his business and, therefore, he did not fall within the expression "employer" as defined in Section 2(6) of the Act. The applicant placed strong reliance for his contention on the case of 1958 All LJ 333 (supra).