Manash Nath Roy, J. - (1.) "Airsico" is the name of the concern of the petitioner, whose office is at 9, Royd Street and the main business of the same, as stated by the petitioner is to attend to the defects including servicing and repairing of the Air Conditioner machines, not only at the premises as mentioned above but also to take such works and complete them, at the places of the customer, on their request or demand. It has been stated that such establishment as mentioned above, started its business and functioning in the year 1966 and for some time thereafter, the establishment had to be closed for reasons and circumstances beyond its control. It would appear from the statements in the petition that the concerned establishment is duly registered under the West Bengal Shops and Establishment Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the said 1963 Act) and at all material times about 60 persons were employed therein which number also included the officers and the watch and ward staff. It would also appear from the pleadings, that the said establishment was also a dealer in spare parts of Air Conditioning machines.
(2.) On or about 15th June, 1972, the Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, respondent No. 1, informed the petitioner that on and from 1st April, 1972 which date has been stated to be 1st April, 1971, by the answering respondents, for whom Mr. Mukherjee has appeared, and it was further informed that for such business as mentioned above, was treated as a Factory and have been brought under the purview of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 1948 Act), and as such, the authorities concerned directed the petitioner to comply with the formalities and requirements under that Act. Against such directions, the petitioner represented that the business carried on or undertaken by him, was not for any manufacturing purposes and as such the concerned establishment could not be treated and considered as a Factory, in terms of the definition under the 1948 Act. As such, it was claimed that the provisions of that Act were not applicable. It was specifically stated that the establishment at 9, Royd Street, Calcutta 16, was just a service station and was not a Factory. The petitioner has also stated that since after other representations made on the subject, the respondents did not reply, he thought or took it to be granted that the matter was dropped.
(3.) In fact, the proceeding was not dropped and on 7th May, 1973, the respondent No. I, informed the petitioner that as 20 or more persons were employed in the establishment of the petitioner, the same would come within the purview of Factory and the said 1948 Act, as such, would be applicable. In terms of the directions as contained in that letter, the petitioner has not only meet the respondent No. 1, but has also stated to have kept in record the contentions, by the letter of 4th July, 1975. It was the case of the petitioner that only 15 employees were employed by him at the establishment as mentioned herein before and the other employees as employed by him, were either in sales as dealer of Air Conditioners, who attend the customer's premises, on calls. It was also claimed that the petitioner was not a manufacturing unit or carries on any manufacturing process in the premises in question.;