Bimal Chandra Basak, J. - (1.) This application under section 226 of the Constitution of India involves a short point. The petitioner No. 1 in this case is the Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner company). The admitted position is that the petitioner company carries on business of Water Transport both in Indian territorial water as well as I overseas and is owner of various merchant and cargo vessels which operate in various parts of the world. The petitioner company has divers employees working in different offices of the petitioner company both on shore as well as afloat the vessels belonging to the petitioner company. On the 16th March, 1979 the respondent No. 2 wrote a letter to the petitioners stating that they have committed infringement of sections 16(1) and 17(1) of the West Bengal Shops and Establishments Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and the rules framed thereunder for not applying for registration and for not producing the prescribed register and visit book on demand. They were called upon to comply with the provisions of the said Act and the rules. According to the petitioners in view of section 4(1 )(b) of the said Act, they remained outside the purview of the said Act. Section 4(1) of the said Act provides as follows:- Section 4 : Act or some of its provisions not applicable to certain establishments, shops and persons : (1) This Act shall not apply to- (a) offices of or under the Central or State Governments, Reserve Bank of India, and Railway Administration or any Local Authority ; (b) any Railway Service, Air Service, Water Transport Service, Tramways or Motor Service, Post & telegraph or telephone Service, any system of public conservancy or sanitation or any industry, business or undertaking which supplies power, light or water to the public.
(2.) The contention of the petitioners is that they come within the purview of section 4(l)(b) of the said Act. The petitioner company carries on business in Water Transport Service and accordingly is exempted from the scope of the said Act.
(3.) The case sought to be made out by the respondents in the affidavit affirmed by Surhid Chandra Sen, affirmed on 17th January, 1978 is to the following effect:-it is denied and disputed that the provisions of the said Act are not applicable to the petitioner which carries on business of Water Transport Service. It is further denied and disputed that the petitioner No. 1 is exempted from the provisions of the said Act.;