Delhi Shops and Establishments Act,1954 — Physical PDF page 17 of 27

Establishments Rules. If, however, the termination of service is bona fide and in compliance with
the provisions of section 30(1) of the Act, the Industrial Tribunal cannot interfere with the same;
Goodlass Narolac Paints Pvt. Ltd. v. Chief Commissioner, 30 FJR 442 of Circuit Bench of Punjab
High Court at Delhi.
(c) Acts and omissions constituting misconduct
    For the purpose of section 30, for the term, “misconduct” reference be made to Rule 13 of the
Delhi Shops and Establishments Rules but the list is not exhaustive in view of the word ‘includes’.
(d) Section 30 of the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954 does not exclude the
application of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
    A plain reading of section 30 would go to show that its scope is very narrow and limited. Sub-
section (1) of this section only speaks of giving of a notice to an employee before dispensing with
his services and on payment of wages in lieu of such notice. It also says that a notice of dismissal
shall not be necessary where the services of an employee are dispensed with for misconduct.
Sub-section (2) of section 30 deals with the obligation of an employee to give a notice to the
employer when he wishes to leave the services. By sub-section (3) of section 30, any employee
who complains that his services have been terminated in contravention of section 30(1), can
apply to a Magistrate for payment to him of one month’s wages as compensation. Section 30
nowhere deals with the granting of relief or reinstatement to a discharged or dismissed employee
or with the payment of retrenchment compensation to any employee. That being so, it is difficult
                                                                   e
to see how the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954 is a complete Code in itself, giving to
                                                             od
an employee, all the reliefs which he can get as a result of an award given on a reference made
under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act and how section 30 of the Delhi Shops and
                                                       aC
Establishments Act, 1954 takes away the power of the Government to make the reference to a
Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal and the jurisdiction of the Labour Court or Tribunal is in no
way affected even by sub-section (3) which deals with the grant of compensation. Further the
                                                  di
expression, “under any other law” occurring in section 24 of the Delhi Shops and Establishments
                                              In
Act, 1954, clearly means not “under a law replaced by the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act,
1954” but under any law which is operative and in force at the time of the coming into force of the
Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954 and which continues to be in force thereafter. So
judged from any angle, the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954 does not exclude the
application of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, provided the person concerned is a workman and
the shop or establishment is an industry as defined in the Act; Chalchitra Karamchari Sangh v.
Regal Talkies, 1964 I LLJ 684 (MP HC): 1963 Lab. LJ 728: (1963) 7 Fac. IR 328: (1965-66) 90
FJR 56: ILR (1965) Madh Pra 56: AIR 1964 Mad. Pra 20. (The above was decided under similar
provision of the Madhya Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1954 and it was held that the
said Act does not exclude the application of ID Act).
    The object of the provisions of Delhi Shops and Establishments Act is entirely different from
that of the Industrial Disputes Act. No doubt on the basis that the petitioner’s business is a shop
or establishment and the respondent is an employee within the meaning of Delhi Shops and
Establishments Act, the said Act would be applicable to them, and on the basis that respondent is
a “workman” and the petitioner’s business is an “industry” within the meaning of the Industrial
Disputes Act, the said Act also would be applicable to them. But the question of the provisions of
one Act excluding the provisions of the other Act will arise only if the subject-matter of the claim is
one which has been provided for in both the Acts. When the claim was for retrenchment
compensation under section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and there was no corresponding
provision in the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act which provided for such retrenchment
compensation, the question of the latter Act excluding the former does not arise at all; Adishwar
v. Labour Court Delhi, 1970 Lab. IC 936 (Del. HC). See also Delhi Consumer Co-operative
WholeSale Stores Ltd. v. Secretary (Labour), 1984 (1) ELJ (L & S) 433 Del.
    31. Provisions in respect of shops and commercial establishments where more than
one business is carried on.—Where any retail trade or business which is exempted from all or
any of the provisions of the Act, is carried on along with other retail trade or business, the
exemption shall not apply to that part of trade or business which is not exempted from the
provisions of the Act.