Per SHARMA - (1.) THE learned counsel for the respondent has, in support of his stand, placed reliance on several decisions of this court and the High Courts in which the notification in identical terms has been construed in the way as is suggested on behalf of the Corporation.
(2.) Although Mr. Bobde, learned counsel for the appellant, has advanced an argument, which on the face of it, appears to be attractive, I think that in view of the consistent interpretation of the notification 483 which has been followed in the country, the question should not be reopened for fresh consideration. Accordingly, I agree that all these appeals should be dismissed but without costs. Per MOHAN, J. These appeals can be dealt with by a common judgment since the question of law to be decided is one and the same. It is enough if we note the facts in Civil Appeal No. 2599 of 1980. The appellant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. It has its registered office at Jew Town in Mattancherry. It is engaged in the business of clearing and forwarding at the Port of Cochin situated in Willingdon Island. It is authorised to transact its business at the Cochin Custom House under the terms of Section 202 of the Sea Customs Act read with the Rules made thereunder and a licence was issued under the said provisions.
(3.) THE appellant received a notice dated 3/01/1975 enclosing certain notification whereby the Employees State Insurance Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was extended to certain classes of establishments specified in the Schedule wherein 20 or more persons are employed or were employed during that period. The appellant replied that it did not fall under the purview of the said notification. Therefore, the appellant was not liable to comply with any of the provisions of the Act. Another letter dated 8/09/1975 was received by the appellant calling it upon to furnish certain details. This was replied to by a letter dated 20/09/1975 whereunder the details were furnished. Thereafter a notice dated November 7, 1975 with which were enclosed certain printed forms, was received by the appellant. The appellant replied on 18/11/1975 denying liability to pay any contribution under the Act. The stand of the appellant was that the company does not come within the notification dated 18/09/1974 as the appellant was not a shop and was carrying on business of clearing and forwarding at the Cochin Port. In reply to the said letter the appellant received a letter dated 9/12/1975 staling that the Insurance Inspector who visited the appellant found 20 persons employed in the shop. It was functioning as shipping, clearing and forwarding agents. The appellant served the customers. Therefore, it was a shop within the dictionary meaning of the term and called upon the appellant to submit the returns. Contending that the appellant does not render any service to customers at its office, it was merely carrying on clearing and forwarding business by processing the documents at Custom House, no service being rendered at the appellant's office establishment, it was urged that it could not be called a shop within the dictionary meaning. An application was moved under Section 75 of the Act before the Employees' Insurance court, Calicut to decide the dispute and to hold that the appellant was not a shop within the purview of the Act and, therefore, the Act itself was inapplicable.;