TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1978 (11) TMI 168
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts leading to the prosecution of the Petitioner, who was original Accused No. 2 before the Trial Court, are the following:-- Accused No. l was the Personnel Officer of Messrs, Indian Tools Manufacturers Limited which has its factory at Sion (hereinafter referred to as the Company). Accused No. 2 was a caterer running a canteen. By an Agreement dated 16th March 1974, Accused No. 2 agreed to operate a canteen in the factory premises of the said Company at Sion on the terms and conditions contained therein. 3. On 2-12-1976 at about 12.45p.m. Padinalthu Abraham (P. W. 1), an Inspector in the employ of the Bombay Municipal Corporation, visited the factory premises of the said Company. Abraham enquired with Accused Nos. 1 and 2 whether they ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....39;eating house' inasmuch as the staff canteen run by Accused No. 2 on behalf of the said Company was not open to the public. The entry to the staff canteen was restricted only to the employees of the said Company. That being the case, according to Mr. Shrikrishna, the staff canteen could not be termed either as an 'eating house' or as a 'catering establishment'. 6. Mr. Shrikrishna relied upon a ruling of our High Court in the case of Hotel Mazdoor Sabha v. N.J. Alvares. AIR 1965 Bom 13 wherein K.K. Desai. J. sitting singly was pleased to observe (at p. 15):-- "The carrying on of the business of supply of meals or refreshments is the first essential of the premises being 'restaurant or eating house' under Sub-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... establishment." Section 3 (ff) of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act defines "eating house" as follows:-- " 'eating-house' means any premises to which the public are admitted and where any kind of food is prepared or supplied for consumption on the premises for the profit or gain of any person owning or having an interest in or managing such premises;" 8. Now it is pertinent to note that although the expression "eating house" has been defined under the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, the expression "catering establishment" has not been defined. It is true that the staff canteen run by Accused No. 2 was not open to the members of the public at large and the admission was restricted solely to the employees of the said Company....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ression, that the members of the public should have an access to such an establishment before it could become 'a catering establishment' within the meaning of the relevant entry in Part TV of Schedule M. It cannot be disputed that in the canteen in question articles of food and other requisites are being purveyed to the students and the members of the Institute and, therefore, the canteen in question clearly falls within the expression 'a catering establishment' occurring in the relevant entry in Part IV of Schedule." 9. The ruling in the case of Hotel Mazdoor Sabha v. N.J. Alvares, AIR 1965 Bom 13 cited by Mr. Shrikrishna dealt with the question which arose under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act and was concerned wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the occupier for the use of the workers." Rule 85 Sub-rule (2) provides:-- "Food, drink and other items served in the canteen shall be sold on nonprofit basis and in computing the charges to be made for such food, drink or other items, the following items shall not be taken into consideration, namely:-- (The rest of the Sub-rule is not relevant for the purpose of this discussion) The argument urged by Mr. Shrikrishna that since the staff canteen was conducted on a no-profit basis, it could not be termed as a catering establishment, cannot be accepted. Now it is true that so far as the employer is concerned, the staff canteen has to be run on a no-profit basis. However, the same could not be stated so far as Accused No. 2 was conce....