1968 (5) TMI 57 - SC - Indian Laws

Doctor's dispensary not a 'Commercial Establishment' under Bombay Shops Act. Activity must be commercial, not just professional.

Dr. Devendra M. Surti Versus State Of Gujarat

The Supreme Court held that a doctor's dispensary is not considered a 'Commercial Establishment' under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948. The ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether a doctor's dispensary is a 'Commercial Establishment' under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948.2. The interpretation of 'Commercial Establishment' under Section 2(4) of the Act.3. The applicability of the Act to professional establishments.Detailed Analysis:1. Whether a doctor's dispensary is a 'Commercial Establishment' under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948:The prosecution argued that the appellant, a doctor with a dispensary registered as a 'Commercial Establishment,' failed to maintain the prescribed register as required under Rule 23(1) of the Rules framed under the Act. The appellant contested this, claiming that a doctor's dispensary does not fall within the definition of a 'Commercial Establishment' under the Act, and hence, the provisions of the Act did not apply to his dispensary. The City Magistrate acquitted the appellant, but the High Court of Gujarat convicted him, leading to this appeal.2. The interpretation of 'Commercial Establishment' under Section 2(4) of the Act:The Supreme Court examined the definition of 'Commercial Establishment' under Section 2(4) of the Act, which includes establishments carrying on any business, trade, or profession. The Court noted that the term 'Commercial Establishment' is defined broadly and could grammatically include a doctor's consulting room. However, the Court applied the principle of 'noscitur a sociis,' meaning that words take their meaning from associated words. The Court emphasized that the nature of the activity must be commercial in character, not merely professional.3. The applicability of the Act to professional establishments:The Court distinguished between professional activities and commercial activities. It stated that a professional activity must involve intellectual skill and personal qualifications, which are not typically associated with commercial activities. The Court referenced previous cases, including 'The National Union of Commercial Employees v. M. R. Meher,' where it was held that the work of solicitors is not an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, highlighting the distinction between professional services and commercial enterprises.The Court concluded that for a professional activity to fall under Section 2(4) of the Act, it must be systematically and habitually undertaken for rendering material services to the community with the help of employees, in a manner akin to a trade or business. The Court found that the appellant's dispensary did not meet these criteria, as it was not organized or arranged like a trade or business, and the activity was not commercial in character.Conclusion:The Supreme Court held that the appellant's dispensary did not fall within the definition of a 'Commercial Establishment' under Section 2(4) of the Act. Consequently, the conviction of the appellant under Section 52(e) of the Act read with Section 62 of the Act and Rule 23(1) of the Rules was deemed illegal. The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the High Court was set aside.Final Judgment:The appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence imposed by the High Court were set aside.