(1.) In this writ appeal, preferred by the 3rd respondent in the writ petition against the order of the learned single judge allowing the writ petition, the question that arises for consideration is whether the 1st respondent herein, Sri Arani Kaniappa Maistry Choultry, Santhapet, Nellore, (for short'the choultry') is an establishment within the meaning of Sec. 2 (10) of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1966 (for short 'the Act')
(2.) The facts are few and are not in dispute. The writ petitioner, the choultry, owns shops, rooms, which are leased out to different persons and land which is leased out to a petrol bunk, the saw mills and a cinema theatre. Besides this, it also owns a building which is leased out to Union Bank of India and another building consisting of 8 rooms which are being let out on daily rent basis. Under the Trust deed it is feeding 12 Brahmins and 13 non-brahmins on every Dwadasi day. The appellant herein was appointed by the choultry as a watchman on September 2, 1976. His duties include collection of rents from the lodgers of the rooms of the choultry and serving the people who take rooms on daily rent. He was dismissed from service on October 12, 1981, He challenged the validity of the order of the termination before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nellore, the 3rd respondent, under Sec. 41 of the Act. The 3rd respondent allowed the appeal on 29-1-1983 and directed the choultry to reinstate the appellant with continuity of service and with full back wages. This order of the 3rd respondent was assailed by the choultry in Second Appeal No. 14 of 1983 before the Labour Court, Guntur, the 2nd respondent. The Labour Court Guntur, confirmed the order of the 3rd respondent by its judgment dated May 10, 1984. The said order of the Labour Court is assailed by the coul-try in W.P. No. 15026 of 1984, paying for a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the judgment in Second Appeal 14 of 1983 from the 2nd respondent confirming the order of the 3rd respondent and to quash the same. The learned single judge allowed the writ petition on July 19, 1988.
(3.) In this writ appeal Sri Ravichander, the learned counsel for the appellant, contends that the choultry is having rooms which are given to lodgeis on rent and it also owns land which it leased out to a theatre, petrol bunk and saw-mills. Therefore, it is an establishment within the meaning of the Act. For purposes of 'establishment', submits the learned counsel, it is not necessary that a business or trade should be carried on, and that the learned single Judge is in error in holding that the choultry is not an establishment.