IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2011 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 33435 of 2007(E) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ M/S. STRUCTURAL SOFTECH, DESOM, ALUVA-683 103, REP. BY P.J.SEBASTIAN, MANAGER & POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAVIKUMAR SMT.G.AMBILI RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER (ENFORCEMENT), ERNAKULAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, O/O. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, ALUVA. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts 2/- -2- WP(C)NO.33435/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE INSPECTION NOTE NO.EKM. 14768 DATED 21/6/07. P2 COPY O F THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.42/07 DATED 17/10/2007. P3 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 9/7/2007. P4 COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.252/07 DATED 10/10/2007. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.33435 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a firm engaged in the business of information technology. They are running a consultancy service in respect of computer software. They are aggrieved by Ext.P4 show cause notice issued to them by the 3rd respondent holding that the petitioner's firm is covered under the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960, Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 and directing them to show cause why the petitioner should not be prosecuted for non- compliance with the provisions of said laws. The contention of the petitioner in the writ petition is that, the petitioner is not a shop or commercial establishment as defined in the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960 and therefore the provisions of the Act are not applicable to them and consequently the provisions of the Minimum W.P.(C)No.33435 of 2007 -2- Wages Act, 1948 and the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 are also not applicable. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed wherein the respondents 2 & 3 would take the contention that the petitioner does come within the purview of the Act and therefore they are liable to comply with the statutory provisions under the said legislations. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner is a firm engaged in the business of doing consultancy service in the field of information technology with reference to computer software. The term 'shop' is defined in the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960 in Section 2 (15) which reads as under: “Shop” means any premises where any trade or business is carried on or where services are rendered to customers, and includes offices, store rooms, godowns or warehouses, whether in the same premises or otherwise, used in connection with such trade or business but does not include a commercial establishment or a shop attached to a factory where the persons employed in the shop are allowed the benefits provided for workers under the Factories Act, 1948 (Central Act 63 of 1948); " W.P.(C)No.33435 of 2007 -3- Going by the same any premises where services are rendered to customers come within the definition of 'shop'. As a consultancy firm, the petitioner definitely has to render service to customers either in person or through the internet. As such, I am satisfied that the petitioner answers the definition of 'shop' in Section 2 (15) of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960. In fact the Government has by SRO No.291/2002 exempted Information Technology Software Industry Units in the State from the operation of the provisions of Section 6, 9, 10, 11 & 20 from the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960. That would indirectly mean that the petitioner's firm is covered under the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960 and in view of the said exemption the petitioner is liable to comply with all other provisions of the Act except Section 6, 9, 10, 11 & 20. Once they are covered under the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960 Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 are also W.P.(C)No.33435 of 2007 -4- applicable to the petitioner's establishment. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/