Commercial music-service premises can be a shop under ESI law, with intermittent work still attracting coverage.

A premises used to provide music services for consideration at marriages and other social functions was treated as a shop for the purposes of the Employees' State Insurance Act, because services sold commercially fall within the ordinary meaning of shop and the Act is beneficial legislation. The intermittent or seasonal character of such work did not exclude the establishment from coverage, since employees connected with the business, including part-time or daily-wage workers, remained within the Act. The challenge to section 1(5) and the notification on grounds of excessive delegation and constitutional violation under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 was rejected, and compliance with the Act was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a premises used for providing music services on payment for marriages and other social functions is a "shop" within the meaning of the notification issued under section 1(5) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, and whether the Act applies to the establishment on that basis; (ii) whether the intermittent or seasonal character of the business takes it outside the operation of the Act; (iii) whether section 1(5) of the Act and the notification issued thereunder suffer from excessive delegation or violate Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether a premises used for providing music services on payment for marriages and other social functions is a "shop" within the meaning of the notification issued under section 1(5) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, and whether the Act applies to the establishment on that basis.

Analysis: The expression "shop" was not defined in the Act. The notification under section 1(5) extended the Act to shops in the notified area. The activity carried on was the making available, for payment, of the services of musicians employed by the petitioner. A place where services are sold on a retail basis falls within the ordinary meaning of shop. The Act being beneficial legislation, a narrow construction was not warranted.

Conclusion: The premises was held to be a shop and the Act applied to the establishment.

Issue (ii): Whether the intermittent or seasonal character of the business takes it outside the operation of the Act.

Analysis: The employees were engaged in connection with the business and the Act extends to employees whose duties are connected with the establishment, including part-time or daily-wage employees. The fact that services may be rendered intermittently or on occasions such as marriages did not create an exemption, and the business was not shown to be confined to a limited season.

Conclusion: The contention that the business was outside the Act because of its intermittent or seasonal character was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether section 1(5) of the Act and the notification issued thereunder suffer from excessive delegation or violate Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The challenge to the State's power to extend the Act to other establishments was not accepted. No merit was found in the claim that the delegation was excessive or that the application of the Act to such businesses infringed the constitutional guarantees relied upon.

Conclusion: The constitutional challenge to section 1(5) and the notification failed.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner was held liable to comply with the Act and both the special leave petition and the writ petition were rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: For a beneficial social welfare enactment, a place where services are commercially provided for consideration may fall within the ordinary meaning of shop, and employees connected with such an establishment are covered even if their engagement is intermittent or part-time.

---