Professionals are not doing commercial activity In the High Court of Judicature at Bo Bombay Nagpur Bench at Nagpur Writ petition no. 4579/2005 Petitioner: Indian Medical Association through its President Dr. Kishor Taori, Having office at IMA House, North Ambazari Road, Nagpur Respondents 1. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Industries and Labour Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai -32 2. The Commissioner of Labour, State of Maharashtra, Mumbai. 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour State of Maharashtra, Nagpur Division, 240, Bhosla Chambers, Civil Lines, Nagpur. Shri B.G. Kulkarni, Advocate for petitioner and Shri A.V. Palshikar, AGP for respondents Coram: smt. Vasanti A Naik, and Kum. Indira Jain, JJ. Date: 21.10.2016 Oral judgment (Per: Smt. Vasanti A Naik, J) By this writ petition, filed by the Indian Medical Association, the petitioner has sought a declaration that the establishments of individual medical practitioners and the medical practitioners working in partnership are not commercial establishments within the meaning of Section 2 (4) of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948. By amending the writ petition, the petitioner - Association has sought a declaration that the inclusion of the term `medical practitioners’ in the definition of 'commercial establishments' in Section 2 (4) of the act by amendment is violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Shri Kulkarni, the learned Counsel for the petitioner - Association states that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as early as in the year 1969 in the judgement, reported in 1969 Mh. L.J. 391 that the professional establishments of Doctors do not fall within the ambit of the definition of ‘commercial establishments' under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act . It is stated that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is followed by this Court in the judgment, reported in 1981.Mh. L. J. 635. It is stated that this Court has held in the order, dated 12.6.2014 in Criminal Writ Petition No.1731/2002 that the amendment, that is, sought to be challenged by the petitioner -Association in this case is ultra vires and is liable to be struck down. It is stated that by the order, dated 12.6.2014, Criminal Writ Petition No.1731/2002 was allowed after striking down the amendment, that is, sought to be challenged. It is stated that a similar view is expressed by this Court time and again and the prayers made by the petitioner need to be granted. Shri Palshikar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents does not dispute the position of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this court in the aforesaid judgments. It is admitted that the questions involved in this writ petition stand answered in favour of the petitioner – Association, in view of the aforesaid judgments. Hence for the reasons recorded in the judgement, reported in reported in 1969 Mh. L. J. 391 and 1981 Mh. L. J. 635 and the unreported order, dated 12.6.2014 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1731/2002,we allow this writ petition. In fact, we find that the declarations that are sought by the petitioner – Association already stand granted by the judgement that are rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court. Hence, we make the Rule absolute in terms of prayer clauses (i) and (i-a). No order as to costs.