Case: G.L. Hotels Limited and Ors.  Vs. T.C. Sarin and Ors.

2. The State Insurance Corporation had raised a demand for contribution from the appellant-hotels for different periods between 1970 till 11.11.1978 treating them as factories within the meaning of the Act. It may be noted here that there is no dispute with regard to the contribution payable on and from 12.11.1978 since a notification has been issued treating the hotels as establishments from the date and, therefore, they are since covered by Section 1(5) of the Act.

Court's reasoning:
5. Since the manufacturing process in the form of cooking and preparing food is carried on in the kitchen and the kitchen is a part of the hotel or a part of the precinct of the hotel, the High Court has held that the entire hotel falls within the purview of the said definition. We do not see any infirmity in the conclusion arrived at by the High Court although we agree with Shri Sorabjee that the reasons given by the Court in support of the conclusions are not all valid. The unity of ownership which is adverted to by the High Court in this connection does not appear to be relevant to the point in issue.7. The observation in the aforesaid paragraph namely no part of the premises is used for purposes unconnected with the manufacturing processes has been strongly relied upon by Shri Sorabjee to contend that according to this Court the rest of the premises of the hotel must be shown to be connected with the kitchen activities and unless it is so shown, the rest of the hotel-premises cannot be covered by the said Act. There is no doubt that in the course of explaining the activity which was under consideration in the said judgment the Court has made the observation in question to show how in fact, even the activities carried on in the rest of the premises were also connected with the manufacturing process. The observation is, however, not the basis of the conclusion arrived at there. The observation has to be understood in the context in which it was made and cannot be interpreted to mean that in every case, such a connection has necessarily to be established in all respects. It is enough according to us, that the manufacturing activity has a broad connection with the activities carried on in the rest of the premises. For example, in the present case, it cannot be denied that kitchen is an integral part of the hotel-business. Those who occupy hotel do depend upon the food and the beverages which are prepared in its kitchen. It is not possible to conceive of a hotel without a kitchen. The lodging and boarding are both essential components of the services rendered by a hotel. Hence, it cannot be denied that the activity in the kitchen has a connection with activities carried on in the rest of the hotel premises. It should not further be forgotten that the definition of certain premises as a factory or of certain activities as an industry etc. given in social welfare legislations like the present, are necessarily artificial. The object is to extend the welfare coverage to as large a section of the individuals as possible. Such definitions cannot be tested on the anvil of the common usage of the terms defined. The present is an illustration of the kind. At the same time, the contention advanced by Shri Sorabjee cannot be dismissed lightly and may have to seriously considered in appropriate cases. We are not accepting it in the present case because as pointed out above, it cannot be said that the kitchen activity has no relation at all with the activities in the other premises of the hotel.9. It is interesting to note that the present petitioner had filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the original notice of demand dated 29.8.1983 on the only ground that petitioners hotel was not covered by the Act. That petition was dismissed. Nearly two years after the said decision, the petitioner filed a special leave petition which is pending in this Court. However, along with the petition, the petitioner also filed the present writ petitions. Learned Counsel for the petitioner was unable to explain as to how the present writ petitions under Article 32 were maintainable against the very same decision of the High Court. It is in these writ petitions that by an amendment, the petitioner has challenged for the first time the second notice dated 20.10.1983 demanding the contribution on behalf of the employees other than those engaged in the kitchen. This demand of course was with interest from 12.2.1976. Since we are of the view that the writ petitions themselves are not maintainable, the plea cannot be entertained. We, therefore, dismiss the writ petitions as being non-maintainable and decline to go into the question raised as to whether the demand for interest on the additional contribution from 12.2.1976 is valid or not.