Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
LIPTON INDIA LTD. ETC
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF MARARASHTRA & ANR
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/08/1996
BENCH:
PUNCHHI, M.M.
BENCH:
PUNCHHI, M.M.
VENKATASWAMI K. (J)
CITATION:
JT 1996 (7) 611 1996 SCALE (5)767
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
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.