1

                                       REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL  NO. 2416 OF 2003

Bangalore Turf Club Ltd. .... Appellant

Versus

Regional Director, ESI Corporation .... Respondent

WITH Civil Appeal Nos. 49/2006 and 1575/2006

O R D E R

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The short  question involved  in these  cases  is  whether the appellant  Turf  

Clubs are covered by the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short the 'ESI Act').

Under Section 1 sub-section (5) of  the ESI Act all  establishments are not  

automatically covered by the said Act but only such establishments as are mentioned in  

the  notification  issued  by  the  appropriate  Government  under  Section  1(5).   This  

provision is not like sub-section (4) of Section 1 by which all factories are automatically  

covered by the ESI Act.  The notifications issued under Section 1(5) in these cases use the  

word 'shop' and it has been held by the impugned judgments in these cases that the turf  

clubs are shops.  Reliance in this behalf has been placed on the judgment of this Court in  

the  case  of  Employees  State  Insurance  Corpn.   Vs.  Hyderabad  Race  Club 2004  

(6)SCC,191.

With great respect to the aforesaid decision in the case of Hyderabad Race  

Club (supra),  we  think that  the  said  decision  requires  reconsideration.   In  common  

parlance a club is not a shop.  

2

The  word 'shop'  has  not  been  defined  either  in  the  ESI  Act  nor  in  the  

notification issued by the appropriate government  under Section 1(5).  Hence, in our  

opinion,  the  meaning  of  'shop'  will  be  that  used  in  common parlance.   In  common  

parlance when we go for shopping to a market, we do not mean going to a racing club.  

Hence, prima facie, we are of the opinion that the appellant-club is not a shop within the  

meaning of the Act or the notification issued by the appropriate government.   

In our opinion, the error in the judgment in the case of  Hyderabad Race  

Club (supra) is that it has been presumed therein that all establishments are covered by  

the Act.  That is not correct.  Only such establishments are covered as are notified under  

Section 1(5) in the official gazette.   

   The High Court in the impugned judgment has placed reliance on the judgment of this  

Court  in the case  of  Bangalore  Water  Supply & Sewerage  Board Vs.  A.  Rajappa &  

Ors.1978(2)  SCC,  213.  In  our  opinion,reliance  on  the  aforesaid  decision  is  wholly  

misplaced.   The definition of 'industry'  in the Industrial  Disputes Act is very wide as  

interpreted  in  the  aforesaid  decision.   We cannot  apply  the judgment  given  under  a  

different  Act to a case  which is covered by the ESI Act.   Under various labour laws  

different  definitions have been given to the words 'industry'  or 'factory'  etc.  and we  

cannot  apply  the  definition  in  one  Act  to  that  in  another  Act  (unless  the  statute  

specifically says so).  It is only where the language used in the definition is in pari materia  

that this may be possible.

Hence, we are of the opinion that the decision of this Court in the case of  

Hyderabad  Race  Club (supra)  should  be  reconsidered  by  a  larger  Bench.   In  the  

meantime, the respondents shall not raise any demand against the appellant-clubs.  

Let the papers of these cases be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of

3

India for constituting an appropriate Bench.  

...........................J.        (MARKANDEY KATJU)

...........................J.        (H.L. DATTU)

New Delhi April 28, 2009