Interpretation of "shop" under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act limits coverage to premises where selling or service activity is actually carried on.

The term "shop" under section 2(27) of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 is construed as premises where goods are sold or services are rendered, together with ancillary places used in connection with that specific business. The extended wording does not bring within the Act every workplace linked to a selling business in general; the word "such" ties the extension back to the opening part of the definition. The availability of a separate notification power to extend the Act, and the exclusion of factories from the definition, support this limited construction. A description in registration papers does not create estoppel or shift the burden in a criminal prosecution.

---

---

Issues: Whether a small manufacturing concern with no sales on the premises or services rendered to customers is a "shop" within the meaning of section 2(27) of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948, so as to attract liability for breaches under the Act.

Analysis: The definition of "shop" in section 2(27) covers premises where goods are sold or where services are rendered, and extends to ancillary places mainly used in connection with such trade or business. The decisive question was whether the extended part of the definition could be read broadly enough to include any work place connected with a selling business, or whether it remained confined to premises where selling is carried on on defined premises. The construction adopted was that the word "such" refers back to the business described in the opening part of the definition, and the extended words do not enlarge it to cover every business connected with selling in general. The availability of section 5, which empowers the State Government to extend the Act by notification to establishments otherwise outside it, reinforced the conclusion that small concerns of this kind were not intended to be included at the outset. The reference to the Central legislation, and the exclusion of factories from the definition of "shop", also supported this interpretation. The appellant's description of his concern in registration papers did not create an estoppel, and the burden could not be shifted in a criminal prosecution on the basis of such an admission.

Conclusion: The establishment was not a "shop" under section 2(27), and the appellant was not liable for the alleged breaches under the Act. The conviction and sentence were rightly set aside.

---