GOPALAKRISHNAN K Vs. ASSISTANT INSPECTOR OF LABOUR RAYADURG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Rc. Nos. 27, 28 and 32 of 1991 dated 25/05/1991 of the Assistant Inspector of Labour, Rayadurg. Anantapur District, and to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and to declare that the provisions of A.P. Shops and Establishments Act and the Rules made thereunder are not applicable to the office of Chartered Accountant.

(2.) It is submitted by the petitioner that the petitioner is a Chartered Accountant practising at Rayadurg and is a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and completed the course of Chartered Accountant in the year 1984. The respondent- Asst. Labour Officer, Rayadurg, issued an inspection order and notice dated 7/03/1991 stating that on recent inspection on 20/02/1991 he found certain provisions of the A. P. Shops and Establishments Act and Rules made thereunder are not being carried out and asked the petitioner to show cause within seven days as to why penal action under the said Act should not be taken against him. It is further submitted that after the receipt of the notice, the petitioner immediately gave reply on 16/04/1991 stating that the office of the Chartered Accountants and Auditors falls within the definition of the said Act. It is further submitted that the profession of Chartered Accountant and maintenance of an office for his practice would not be covered by shops or establishments as defined under the said Act. After considering the reply given by the petitioner, the respondent passed the impugned order dated 25/05/1991 stating that the petitioner's office comes under the said Act. Aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the office maintained by the Chartered Accountant for practice is not a 'shop' within the meaning of Section 2(21) of the A. P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1966 and maintenance of the office of Chartered Accountant for practice is a profession just like an advocate profession. Therefore, the petitioner need not register his office under the said Act. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the respondent is illegal and liable to be set aside. The impugned notice issued by the respondent is to the following effect: