In continuation of above, in Kemp and co ltd v workmen commissioner decided by Madras High Court on 19.7.1955, it held that for construing the term " person employed" under section 2(12) of the State Shops and Establishment Act, the common law concept of master and servant, and employer and employee cannot be looked into. It is the statutory definition only to be seen. Thus, for answering the query also, the State Shop and Establishment need to be looked into while understanding the legal position. Say under Delhi Shops and Establishment Act, the term misconduct is used under section 30 for an employee but not for an employer. The list of misconducts under the rules relate to employee and not for employer or its shareholder. The term "employment" is similarly not to be understood in a loose sense but in accordance with statutory terminology. If that be so then "dual employment" is to be understood as dually employed as an employee.
If very wide meaning is attributed then employees of thousands of establishments who have their shares in corporates, will be treated to be running business though as sleeping shareholders and thus would be treated as dually employed. Such a construction will be detrimental to interest of society.
Thanks
Sushil