Case: V. Sasidharan Vs. Peter &amp; Karunakar &amp; Ors

2. The appellant, V. Sasidharan, was working as a clerk in a firm of lawyers which is respondent 1 to this appeal. Respondents 2,3 and 4 are partners of the firm. The services of the appellant were terminated by the firm on February, 3, 1977 whereupon he preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority under the Act. A preliminary objection was raised in that appeal by the firm on the ground that it was not a commercial establishment. By a judgment dated August 11, 1977. the Appellate Authority upheld the preliminary objection and dismissed the appeal.3. Being aggrieved by that judgment, the appellant filed a writ petition (OP. No. 3380 of 1977-B) in the High Court of Kerala. A learned single judge of the High Court dismissed that writ petition, against which the appellant filed a Letters Patent Appeal (W.A No. 11 of 1978). That appeal was dismissed on July 26, 1978 (reported in 1978 Lab IC. 1614). This appeal by special leave is filed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court.

Court's reasoning:
12. For these reasons, we are of the opinion that the office of a lawyer or of a firm of lawyers is not a commercial establishment within the meaning of the Act. This conclusion is strengthened by the other provisions of the Act. Chapter IA of the Act provides for registration of establishments, Chapter II for hours of work, Chapter III for holidays and leave, Chapter IV for wages. Chapter V for employment of children and women and Chapter VI for health and safety measures. S.6 of the Act provides that no employee in any establishment shall be required or allowed to work for more than eight hours on any day or for more than 48 hours in any week. S.8 requires that, the period of work of an employee in an establishment for each day shall be so fixed that no period shall exceed four hours and that no such person shall work for more than four hours before he has had an interval for rest of at least one hour. Under S.10, no establishment shall, on any day, be opened earlier than and closed later than such hours as may be fixed by the Government, provided that any customer who is being served or is waiting to be served in any establishment at the hour fixed for its closing may be served during a quarter of an hour immediately following such hour. These and other cognate provisions of the Act show that a lawyers office cannot possibly be comprehended within the meaning of the expression commercial establishment as defined in S.2(4) of the Act. We are quite solicitous about the welfare of those who work in the lawyers offices. But, there are many other ways in which their welfare can be ensured. If the current trends are any indication and if old memories fail not, the earnings of lawyers clerks cannot, in reality, bear reasonable comparison with the earning of employees of commercial establishments, properly so called. They, undoubtedly, work hard but they do not go without their reward. They come early in the morning and go late at night, but that is implicit in the very nature of the duties which they are required to perform and the time they spend is not a profitless pastime.The learned single judge and the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court have dealt with the questions arising in this appeal with care. We agree with their reasoning and hold that the office of lawyers or of a firm of lawyers is not a commercial establishment within the meaning of S.2(4) of the Act.The proposition isthat words which occur in the same context must take their colour from each other. It is unrealistic to dissect the definition clause in S.2(4) and to catch a word here or. there in order to bring a lawyers office within the four corners of the definition of commercial establishment. The various clauses of that definition would show that establishment, far apart from professional offices, were within the contemplation of theargument overlooks that, under the second clause of the definition in S.2(4), commercial establishment means "an establishment or administrative service in which the persons employed are mainly engaged in office work". Partly, we go back to the same question as to whether a lawyers office is anestablishment within the meaning of the Act. The other aspect which this argument fails to take note of is that a lawyers office is not anadministrative service. It seems to us doing violence to the language of the second clause of S.2(4) to hold that a lawyers office is an administrative service. This argument has therefore to be rejected.