In   1977   Section   2(4)   of   the   Bombay  Shops   and   Establishments   Act,   1948   has   been  amended   and   the   amended   provision   reads   as  under:

“(4)   “Commercial   establishment”  means an establishment which carries  on,   any   business,   trade   or  profession or any work in connection  with, or incidental or ancillary to,  any   business,   trade   or   profession  (and   includes   establishment   of   any  legal   practitioner,   medical  practitioner,   architect,   engineer,  accountant,   tax   consultant   or   any  other   technical   or   professional  consultant   and   also   includes)   a  society   registered   under   the  Societies   Registration   Act,   1866  (XXI   of   1860),   and   charitable   or  other   trust,   whether   registered   or  not,  which  carries  on  (whether  for  purposes   of   gain   or   not)   any  business,   trade   or   profession   or  work   in   connection   with   or  incidental  or  ancillary  thereto  but  does   not   include   a   factory,   shop,  residential   hotel,   restaurant,  eating house, theatre or other place  of   public   amusement   or  entertainment;”

 The Apex Court in the case of  Dr.  Devendra   M.   Surti   v.   The  State of Gujarat, reported  in AIR 1969  SC 63   has   held   that   private  dispensary   of   a   doctor   is   not   a   commercial  establishment.   The   Apex   Court   in   the   said  Judgment has observed as under:

“7. It is therefore clear that a professional   activity   must   be   an  activity carried on by an individual by   his   personal   skill   and  intelligence. There is a fundamental  distinction   therefore   between   a  professional activity and an activity of a commercial character and unless the   profession   carried   on   by   the  appellant   also   partakes   of   the  character of a commercial nature, the  appellant   cannot   fall   within   the  ambit of Section 2(4) of the Act. In  National   Union   of   Commercial  Employees and another v. M.R. Meher,  Industrial   Tribunal,   Bombay,   1962  Supp (3) SCR 157 = (AIR 1962 SC 1080)  it  was  held  by  this  Court  that  the  work of solicitors is not an industry  within the meaning of Section 2(j) of  the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and  therefore  any  dispute  raised  by the  employees  of  the  solicitors  against  them  cannot  be  made  the  subject  of  reference to the Industrial Tribunal.  ……”

A similar issue had arisen before the Division  Bench  of  this  Court  in  the  case  of  Narendra Keshrichand Fuladi and Anr. v. State  of Maharashtra, reported in Mh.L.J. 1985 Page 1. There the question   which   fell   for   consideration   before  the   Court   was   whether   a   legal   practitioner  having an office can be treated on par with the  other  commercial  establishments.  The  Division  Bench held that a legal practitioner having an  office   cannot   be   said   to   be   carrying   on  commercial activity and would not fall within  the   definition   of   the   expression   “commercial establishment”. This Bench also, by order dated  12.­6­.2014 passed in the petition filed vide Criminal Writ Petition No.1731 of 2002 of Dr.  (Smt.)  Shubhada  Motwani  v.  The  State  of  Maharashtra & Ors.},    has   held   that   the   amendment  incorporating  medical practitioners within the  definition   of   the   expression   “commercial  establishment”   will   have   to   be   struck   down  since doctors cannot fall within the definition  of  the  said  expression.  The  writ  petition  is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clauses  (a) and (b)  and is accordingly disposed of.