UNITED CLUB Vs. JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) United Club, Jamshedpur, is the petitioner. The Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jamshedpur, by a letter dated 21 -7 -1979, a copy of which has been marked as Annexure 5, asked the petitioner to get the Club registration renewed for the year 1978 -79 under the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1953. Learned Counsel says that the petitioner is not an establishment within the meaning of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act (for short 'the Act') and, therefore, a prayer has been made that the direction to get renewal under the Act be quashed.

(2.) In order to appreciate the argument advanced at the Bar, it may be necessary to mention some facts. According to the petitioner, the Club has been established with a view to provide entertainment and relaxation to its members and keeping that end in view it has a reading room, library, swimming pool and provisions for playing tennis, badminton, etc. It is further said that the Club caters snacks, refreshment and beverages to its members. The purpose for providing the snacks, refreshment and drinks was to assist the members in carrying out their cultural activities. A counter -affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein, inter alia, it has been stated that besides giving facilities to its members the Club occasionally gives on rent to the non -members its premises for holding conferences and other functions. It has also been said in the counter affidavit that occasionally dinners and lunches are also arranged for non -members. Mr. Chatterji, learned Counsel appearing in support of the petition has challenged the statements made in the counter -affidavit and has said that the affidavit shows that the statement made therein are on the basis of record. But Mr. Chatterji says that there is no record to corroborate those statements. Be that as it may I assume in favor of the petitioner that the Club provides services only to its members and their guests. I shall also presume that if any conference is held in the premises of the Club then the booking is made in the name of one of the members of the Club. I propose to examine the case mainly on the statement made in the writ petition, the relevant portion of which I have already quoted above.

(3.) The only question, therefore, that arises for determination in this application is as to whether a Club comes within the purview of the Act or not No case has been brought to my notice which directly covers the point. Is it, therefore, necessary to analyse the relevant provisions of the Act. But before that is done it has to be kept in mind that the Act is beneficial piece of legislation and was made with a view to regulate condition of works and employment in shop and other establishment. Therefore, while interpreting the provisions the object for which the Act was made has to be kept in mind.