Service charge disclosure in restaurants was not unfair trade practice where customers were informed before ordering.

A restaurant's compulsory service charge, when clearly disclosed on the menu card and outside the premises before the order was placed, was not treated as deceptive merely because the reasons for the levy were not separately explained. In the absence of any statutory prohibition, proof of market restriction, or loss of real customer choice between dining in and take-away service, the additional charge was regarded as part of the price structure for table service rather than a compulsory tip. The allegations of unfair trade practice and restrictive trade practice were therefore not established, and the complaint failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether levying compulsory service charges by a restaurant, when disclosed on the menu card and outside the premises, amounted to unfair or restrictive trade practices under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969.

Analysis: The restaurant was an approved establishment and the service charge was shown to customers before the order was placed. The practice was not found to be deceptive merely because the reasons for the charge were not separately explained. There was no statutory prohibition against such levy, no proof that the charge restricted competition, and the customer retained a real choice between dining in and take-away service. The additional levy was treated as part of the price structure for table service and not as a compulsory tip in the legal sense relied upon by the complainant.

Conclusion: The allegation of unfair trade practice and restrictive trade practice was not established, and the complaint failed.

---