THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.881 of 1997 DATE:07.10.2009 Between: The Regional Director, E.S.I.Corporation, Hyderabad and another … Appellants And M/s. Green Land transport, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, rep. by its proprietor D.Sambasivarao … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.881 of 1997 ORDER: The officials of the appellants inspected the premises of the respondent on 12.03.1991. It was found that 25 persons were engaged by the respondent. Accordingly, a notice was issued, demanding contribution for the period from 12.03.1991 to 30.09.1991, being Rs.10,600/-. On the basis of that, recovery proceedings were initiated. Challenging the same, the respondent filed E.I. Case No.49 of 1992 before the Employees Insurance Court and the Chairman of Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’). It was alleged that the respondent is a godown for storing the goods owned by M/s. Brooke Bond India Limited, and by itself, it did not undertake any activity of manufacture, sale or purchase. The Tribunal allowed the E.I. case, through its order, dated 10.01.1994. Hence this appeal. Sri B.G. Ravindra Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the Tribunal relied upon the judgment, which is arisen under the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, and the analogy handled does not have any bearing on the facts of this case. Section 1 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short ‘the Act’) provides for the circumstances, under which a factory, shop, or establishment is covered by the provisions of the Act. A factory is covered per se, whereas shop or establishment can be brought, under the purview of the Act, only when it is notified. In the State of Andhra Pradesh, a notification, no doubt, was issued bringing the shops and establishments, under the purview of the Act. The Act is silent, as to the definition of shop. The Tribunal has chosen to rely upon the definition of shop under the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act. Assuming that the definition of the word “shop” under the Shops and Establishments Act cannot be extended to the instances under the Act, it needs to be seen, whether the respondent answers the description of ‘shop’. I n Hindu Jea Band Vs. Regional Director, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, Jaipur[1], the Supreme Court held that a shop is a place “where services are sold on retail basis”. This was followed in subsequent decisions including the one in Employees’ State Insurance Corporation Vs. R.K. Swamy and others[2]. If that definition is applied to the facts of the instant case, it emerges that the respondent does not answer the description of ‘shop’. The reason is that it has not undertaken any retail activity. Its activity was only to store the goods owned by M/s. Brooke Bond India Limited and to hand over the same, as ordered. It has no discretion or power, either to sell or otherwise deal with the goods, either in retail or in wholesale. Therefore, the order under appeal does not warrant interference. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 7th October, 2009 CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.881 of 1997 7th October, 2009 CBS [1] AIR 1987 S.C. 1166 [2] AIR 1994 S.C. 1154