HOTEL R.V.TOWERS v. UNION OF INDIA

OP 1556/01:2 :3.A reading of the impugned order shows that thecontentions raised by the petitioner are that M/s Hotel R.V.Tower, the establishment in question, was not conducting any hotel orrestaurant and therefore did not come within the purview of thenotification No.GSR-704 dated 16/5/1961. It was also stated thatthe signatory to the statement of employment strength preparedat the time when the Enforcement Officer conducted inspectionhad no connection or ultimate control over the affairs of theestablishment. 4. Yet another plea that was raised was that theestablishment was inaugurated on 12/6/95 and therefore waseligible for infancy protection for 3 years from the date of itsinauguration and hence coverage from April 1998 was erroneous. 5. All the aforesaid contentions have been dealt with indetail in Ext.P4 and are rejected. 6. In so far as the contention that the petitioner was notconducting any hotel or restaurant business and therefore wasoutside the purview of the notification dated 16/5/1961 isconcerned, reference has been made in Ext.P4 about theadvertisement issued by the petitioner on 12/1/95 on the occasion OP 1556/01:3 :of the inauguration of the hotel and a copy of the advertisementis produced along with the counter affidavit of the 2nd respondentas Ext.R2(a).

The advertisement gives a clear picture of thebusiness of the establishment, which included restaurants as well. Nothing has been placed on record either during the course ofenquiry or even in this original petition to show that theconclusions arrived at by the authorities in this behalf iserroneous. If that be so, the plea raised by the petitioner beforethe 2nd respondent and reiterated in this original petition that thepetitioner has not conducted any hotel or restaurant business tobe covered under the Act is only to be rejected and I do so. 7. In so far as the employment strength is concerned, petitioner submits that the number of employees engaged neverexceeded 20, in which event only, they have the obligation to becovered under the Act. True, a reading of para 11 of the ordershows that the muster roll of the period from 5/97 to 2/98 andwage register for the period 8/97 to 1/98 were seen to have beenproduced before the 2nd respondent.

This order also shows thaton production of these documents, proceedings were adjournedwith a specific direction to the petitioner to produce all supporting OP 1556/01:4 :documents, but nothing was produced neither on the adjourneddate nor at any time thereafter. The order also shows that the Enforcement Officer at the time of inspection verified the musterroll which disclosed employment of only 14 employees, but hefound 7 other employees in the establishment, whose names werenot mentioned in the records. The incompetence of the partieswho signed the inspection report also has been duly dealt with inthe impugned order and rejected. 8. In the light of this factual position and also in theabsence of any documents produced by the petitioner to provethat the employment strength was below 20 at the relevant pointof time, I cannot accept the unsustainable plea raised by thepetitioner in this behalf.

9. Yet another point that was raised before the authoritiesand reiterated before me that the establishment commencedbusiness only on 12/6/95 and therefore was entitled toenforcement protection as provided under Section 16(1)(d) of the Act. 10. As far as this point is concerned, here again apart frommaking this assertion, petitioner has not produced any document OP 1556/01:5 :which were in their possession to substantiate this contention. Onthe other hand, their advertisement issued in the MalayalaManorama Daily dated 12/1/95 declaring the inauguration of thehotel has been relied on by the authorities. In the absence of anydocument from the side of the petitioner and in view of Ext.R2(a)advertisement issued, the finding rejecting the plea of thepetitioner also deserves acceptance. 11. Thus, I do not find any merit in the contentions raisedby the petitioner and therefore Exts.P1 and P4 are unassailable. Accordingly, the original petition is only to be dismissed andI do so.ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGERp