Lipton
India Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr [1996] INSC 900 (6 August 1996)
Punchhi,
M.M. Punchhi, M.M. Venkataswami K. (J)
CITATION:
JT 1996 (7) 611 1996 SCALE (5)767
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
O R D
E R
The
two appellants before us in these respective appeals are Lipton India Ltd. and
Brook Bond India Ltd., two well-known companies dealing in tea. Somewhere in
the year 1968, these companies were in doubt as to whether their upkeep of godowns
would bring them within the ambit of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act,
1948, in the presence of only one salesman opening and closing the Godown for
taking out and putting in tea packets. The modus operandi suggested by the
companies was that tea was stocked in those godowns/depots and a salesman
appointed would take out tea, load it on a push-cart, manually operated by a labourer
and sales offered in the market from door to door. At the end of the day, the
remainder is brought back and put in the godown/depot. On these facts, opinion
of the Government was sought by the companies whether they were required to
have their establishments registered under Section 7 of the Act.
They
were told that they had to, on the failure of which prosecution would be
launched. And as we are told prosecutions were launched.
The
twin challenge of the appellants to the constitutional validity of the
notification supposedly bringing them within the ambit of the Act and the
State's view of the matter on the limited activity of the saleman in his godown/depot,
a pattern adopted through out the country, failed before the High Court in writ
proceedings which has given rise to these appeals.
From
the lengthy pleadings of the parties and the discussion made by the High Court,
we would be required to put at rest the legal consequences of the limited
activity of the salesman. As is plain, the days of push-carts and their being
operated manually by a labourer are over. The prosecution of the companies is
also stale as nearly three decades are about to go by. There was a stay
operating, as granted by this Court. In these circumstances, Mr. Dholkia,
learned senior counsel appearing for the State, is fair enough to state that
the companies would not be prosecuted for the alleged lapses in not having
their establishments registered under Section 7 of the Act. In view of this
stance, Mr. Pai, learned senior counsel, states that the pleaded fact situation
does not warrant that there should be a pronouncement as it is part of the
past; mobility of goods now being otherwise than by push-carts. In view of the respective
stances adopted, we close these matters. The appeals shall be taken to have
been disposed of. It is made clear that should the present modues operandi of
the appellants still requires registration under Section 7 of the Act, they
would be obliged to do so, on the failure of which they would attract
prosecutions. No costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2