The Supreme Court has labeled BCCI as a “shop,” making the provisions of the ESI Act applicable.

The ESI Court and/or the High Court made no error in treating and considering the BCCI as a shop for the applicability of the ESI Act, a bench of Justices MR Shah and PS Narasimha said. The Supreme Court described the ESI Act as welfare legislation enacted by the Centre, and the words used in the Act should not be given a narrow meaning. Because it seeks to insure employees of covered establishments against various risks to their life, health, and well-being while charging the employer.
Taking into account the systematic activities carried out by the BCCI, namely, selling cricket match tickets; providing entertainment; rendering services for a fee; receiving income from international tours and income from the Indian Premier League, the ESI Court and the High Court have correctly concluded that the BCCI is carrying out systematic economic commercial activities and, as a result, the BCCI can be said to be a ‘shop’ for the purposes of oaths.
Previously, the Bombay High Court ruled that BCCI is covered under the definition of shop under a notification issued by the Maharashtra government on September 18, 1978, under the provisions of Section 1(5) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948.The Supreme Court ruled that the term shop should not be understood or interpreted in its traditional sense because it would defeat the purpose of the ESI Act.
It stated that the term shop may be given a broad meaning for the purposes of the ESI Act.The BCCI’s submission that its predominant activity is to encourage cricket/sports and, thus, the same shall not be brought within the definition of shop for the purposes of applying the ESI Act has no substance, the Supreme Court said.The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and upheld the previous decision of the Bombay High Court.In light of the foregoing, and for the reasons stated above, we see no reason to interfere with the High Court’s and ESI Court’s impugned judgments and orders.