RUIA KRISHI KENDRA Vs. CONTROLLING AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, admittedly, has established an agricultural farm in which he continuously and systematically carries on the activities of rearing grape plantations, crop dairy farming and agricultural farming. He employs ten or more employees in the farm. A notice was given covering the petitioner's establishment under the Payment of Gratuity Act 39 of 1972 (for short "the Act"). Assailing the jurisdiction to issue the notice covering the farm as an establishment under the Act, the petitioner canvassed before the Controlling Authority, contending that it is not an establishment or a commercial establishment and therefore, it is not 'establishment' or a 'shop' under Section 1 (3) (b) of the Act and therefore, the coverage is illegal and without jurisdiction. That contention was found favour with to the controlling authority , against which an appeal was carried to the appellate authority, which reversed the finding of the Controlling Authority and held that the petitioner's farm is an establishment within the meaning of Section 1 (3) (b) of the Act and therefore, it is covered under the provisions of the Act. Assailing the legality thereof, this writ petition has been filed.

(2.) The contention of Sri Gopal Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act 15 of 1966 (for short "the Shops Act") was not applied specifically to the area, viz., Ruia Krishi Kendra, Peddashapur village, Ranga Reddy District ; as a result the Shops Act does not apply ; there is no law in force applicable to the area ; and as a result, the petitioner is not covered under the provisions of the Act.

(3.) I find it difficult to give acceptance to the contention. Act 15 of 1966 has been repealed and A.P. Shops and Establishments Act 20 of 1988 came into force with effect from July 26, 1988. At the relevant time, the Shops Act was in force. As regards the definitions, there is no material change. Therefore, it makes little difference whether Act 20 of 1988 or Act 15 of 1966 applies to the facts of this case. Section 2 (10) of the Shops Act defines: