Rajendra Babu, J. - (1.) The appellant is a partnership firm engaged in the retail sale of Godrej Steel Furniture, Usha Fans and similar items having its administrative office at Rajamundry. There is also a sales office at Rajamundry. The appellant has separate units at Kakinada, Visakhapatnam, Vizianagaram, Srikulam, Khammam and Warrangal.
(2.) The Government of Adhra Pradesh extended the application of the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] to different classes of establishments, including 'shop'. By a communication sent on 19-11-1982 the Corporation asked the appellant to furnish the details of its branch offices together with the number of employees working therein as the appellant is covered by the Act pursuant to the notification dated 2-3-1978 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The appellant contended that in none of these outlets there are employees exceeding 10 and each of these outlets is a separate unit and they cannot be clubbed together. Further the sales offices situated in different districts are not covered under the Act and the administrative office is not a 'shop' for the purpose of the Act as no sale takes place there and it is purely an administrative office. The appellant filed an original petition before the E.S.I. Court, Rajamundry, contesting the stand taken by the respondents which was, however, negatived by it by an order made on 4-11-1991. The matter was carried as Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before the High Court. A Division Bench of the High Court observed that if the head office is not covered by the said notification then all the establishments run by the appellant firm cannot be aggregated for the purpose of bringing them within the ambit of the Act and referred the matter to the Full Bench. The Full Bench took the view that for the purpose of the Act the office of the appellant at Rajamundry can be treated as a 'shop' and dismissed the appeal. Hence this appeal by special leave.
(3.) The contentions put forward before the High Court and the Employees' States Insurance Court are reiterated before us on behalf of the appellant, while the learned counsel for the respondent supported the view taken by the High Court. In M/s. Kirloskar Consultants Ltd. v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation, JT 2000 (2) Suppl. SC 585, after referring to the decision in International Ore and Fertilizers (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. ESI Corporation, (1987) 4 SCC 203, Hindu Jea Band v. Regional Director ESIC, (1987) 2 SCC 101 and ESI Corporation v. R. K. Swamy, (1994) 1 SCC 445, we have examined the scope of the expression 'shop' used in the notification issued under the Act and held that the word 'shop' has acquired an expanded meaning. Where in a premises any economic activity is carried on leading to sale or purchase that premises will have to be held a 'shop' for the purpose of the Act even though there is no actual giving or taking of goods in such premises. If the business carried on in a premises results in having some nexus with the purchase or sale of goods is sufficient to be 'shop' for the purpose of the Act.;