A division bench of the Bombay High Court has, in the case of Dr. Pradeep Arora v. State of Maharashtra, upheld the vires of the definition of “establishment”, contained under Section 2(4) of the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 2017 (“the 2017 Act”), which was challenged to the extent the definition included within its ambit the establishment of any medical practitioner (including hospital, dispensary, clinic, polyclinic, maternity home and such others), which was not the case in the earlier legislation.

The Division bench distinguished the provisions of the 2017 Act with the earlier legislation by noting that, the word “Commercial”, which was suffixed to an establishment under the old Act, did not find place in the new Act. The words “profession” or the words “an establishment of medical practitioner” in the definition of “establishment” in Section 2(4) of the 2017 Act were not preceded or associated by the words “business, trade” so as to take such colour, as was there under the old Act. The Court also noted that the definition of “establishment” under the 2017 Act was modelled on the definition of “Industry” under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.