- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Bangalore Turf Club Limited v. Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation .
Factual and Procedural Background
The appeals arise from proceedings in which the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation sought to treat the appellant Turf Club as an establishment covered by the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (ESI Act). The relevant State Government notifications under Section 1(5) of the Act extend the Act to “shops,” and both the original authority and the High Court held that turf clubs fall within that expression. Dissatisfied, the Turf Club filed the present appeals before the Supreme Court of India.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a turf club constitutes a “shop” within the meaning of the notifications issued under Section 1(5) of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948.
- Consequently, whether the appellant Turf Club is an establishment to which the ESI Act applies.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Employees State Insurance Corporation v. Hyderabad Race Club (2004) 6 SCC 191 | Held that a race club is a “shop” and thus an establishment covered by the ESI Act. | The Court expressed respectful disagreement, stating that the judgment presumes all establishments are covered, and directed that it requires reconsideration by a larger Bench. |
| Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa (1978) 2 SCC 213 | Laid down an expansive definition of “industry” under the Industrial Disputes Act. | The High Court had relied on this precedent, but the Supreme Court held that such reliance was misplaced because definitions under different statutes cannot be transposed unless the language is in pari materia. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court’s analytical path proceeded as follows:
- Statutory trigger under Section 1(5): Unlike factories (automatically covered under Section 1(4)), only those establishments specifically notified under Section 1(5) fall within the ESI Act.
- Meaning of “shop” in common parlance: Neither the Act nor the notification defines “shop.” The Court therefore adopted the ordinary meaning, observing that a club devoted to horse-racing is not understood as a “shop” by the general public.
- Error in Hyderabad Race Club: The earlier Supreme Court decision treated all establishments as automatically covered and, in the Court’s view, thereby misapplied Section 1(5). This conceptual error warranted reconsideration.
- Inapplicability of “industry” definition: The High Court’s reliance on Bangalore Water Supply was rejected because the broad definition of “industry” under the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be imported into the ESI Act absent identical statutory language.
Given these concerns, the Bench concluded that the correctness of Hyderabad Race Club should be examined by a larger Bench. Pending such reconsideration, the respondents were restrained from raising any ESI demand against the Turf Club.
Holding and Implications
HOLDING: The matter is referred to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for constitution of an appropriate larger Bench; in the interim, no demand under the ESI Act shall be raised against the appellant Turf Club.
Implications: The immediate effect is an interim reprieve for the Turf Club from ESI contributions. The broader question—whether turf or race clubs are “shops” under the ESI Act—remains unsettled and will be authoritatively decided only after the larger Bench’s review. No new precedent is established at this stage.
Order
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The short question involved in these cases is whether the appellant, Turf Club are covered by the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short “the ESI Act”).
2. Under Section 1 sub-section (5) of the ESI Act all establishments are not automatically covered by the said Act but only such establishments as are mentioned in the notification issued by the appropriate Government under Section 1(5). This provision is not like sub-section (4) of Section 1 by which all factories are automatically covered by the ESI Act. The notifications issued under Section 1(5) in these cases use the word “shop” and it has been held by the impugned judgments in these cases that the turf clubs are shops.
3. Reliance in this behalf has been placed on the judgment of this Court in ESI Corpn. v. Hyderabad Race Club (2004) 6 SCC 191. With great respect to the aforesaid decision in Hyderabad Race Club (2004) 6 SCC 191, we think that the said decision requires reconsideration.
4. In common parlance a club is not a shop. The word “shop” has not been defined either in the ESI Act or in the notification issued by the appropriate Government under Section 1(5). Hence, in our opinion, the meaning of “shop” will be that used in common parlance. In common parlance when we go for shopping to a market, we do not mean going to a racing club. Hence, prima facie, we are of the opinion that the appellant Club is not a shop within the meaning of the Act or the notification issued by the appropriate Government.
5. In our opinion, the error in the judgment in Hyderabad Race Club (2004) 6 SCC 191 is that it has been presumed therein that all establishments are covered by the Act. That is not correct. Only such establishments are covered as are notified under Section 1(5) in the Official Gazette.
6. The High Court in the impugned judgment has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa (1978) 2 SCC 213. In our opinion, reliance on the aforesaid decision is wholly misplaced. The definition of “industry” in the Industrial Disputes Act is very wide as interpreted in the aforesaid decision. We cannot apply the judgment given under a different Act to a case which is covered by the ESI Act.
7. Under various labour laws different definitions have been given to the words “industry” or “factory”, etc. and we cannot apply the definition in one Act to that in another Act (unless the statute specifically says so). It is only where the language used in the definition is in pari materia that this may be possible. Hence, we are of the opinion that the decision of this Court in Hyderabad Race Club (2004) 6 SCC 191 should be reconsidered by a larger Bench. In the meantime, the respondents shall not raise any demand against the appellant Club.
8. Let the papers of these cases be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for constituting an appropriate Bench.
Alert