THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Writ Petition No. 18094 of 2001 Order: This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 18.12.2000 passed in M.W. Case No.12 of 2000 by the first respondent authority appointed under the Minimum Wages Act and the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Kakinada, East Godavari District. The parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the lower Court for the sake of convenience. The applicant filed an application claiming Rs.40,317-50 ps., towards difference of wages from August 1990 to January 1996 contending, inter alia, that he was not paid wages as per the Minimum Wages Act and Rules. According to the applicant, he was paid Rs.267/- per month at the time of joining and later on it was being enhanced from time to time and finally to Rs.891/- per month. It is also his case that he was terminated from service on 13.05.1996. The respondents filed a counter mainly contending that the applicant joined the office of the respondents as daily wage worker and he was paid the wages as per the Government orders and that the applicant received the same without any protest and that the claim of the applicant that they are postponing the payment of minimum wages or difference of wages is not correct. It is also their case that the applicant committed several irregularities and after holding enquiry he was removed from service in the year 1996. The applicant himself was examined as AW.1 before the lower Court. Though the applicant contended that he was working as accountant, the lower authority, on appreciation of evidence, came to the conclusion that the applicant was not an accountant but worked as daily wage NMR. On behalf of the respondents, the then Veterinary Assistant Surgeon was examined as RW.1. According to RW.1, the applicant was removed from service. The lower authority, referring the definition of commercial establishment under section 2(5) of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988, and considering the minimum wages prescribed under G.O. Ms. No.33, dated 06.03.1991 and taking the minimum wage prescribed for helper (unskilled) daily worker in the said G.O., calculated the difference of wages and directed the respondents to deposit Rs.16,844/-. Challenging the said order, this writ petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners mainly contended that since the applicant has misappropriated the amounts of the Corporation he was removed from service and when a person is removed on the charges of misappropriation he is not entitled to any relief. It is also his submission that the applicant did not object during the period 1990 to 1996 when he was paid wages as per the directions of the District Collector and that the provisions of Shops and Establishment Act are not applicable to the respondents organization. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the provisions of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act are applicable to the respondent-Corporation or not. Admittedly, the respondent-Corporation is engaged in selling eggs, chicken etc. The commercial establishment has been defined under sub-section (5) of Section 2 of the A.P. Shops and Establishment Act, which is as follows. “(5) ‘Commercial establishment’ means an establishment which carries on any trade, business, profession or any work in connection with or incidental or ancillary to any such trade, business or profession or which is a clerical department of a factory or an industrial undertaking or which is a commercial or trading or banking or insurance establishment and includes an establishment under the management and control of a co-operative society, an establishment of a factory or an industrial undertaking which falls outside the scope of the Factories Act, 1948 (Central Act 63 of 1948), and such other establishment as the Government may, by notification, declare to be a commercial establishment for the purposes of this Act but does not include a shop;” Shop has been defined under sub-section (21) of Section 2 of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, which is as follows. “(21) ‘shop’ means any premises where any trade or business is carried on or where services are rendered to customers and includes a shop run by a co-operative society, an office, a storeroom, godown, warehouse or work place whether in the same premises or otherwise, used in connection with such trade or business and such other establishments as the Government may, by notification declare to be a shop for the purposes of this Act, but does not include a commercial establishment;” Though it is submitted that the respondent-Corporation do not come within the purview of commercial activity under the provisions of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, but nothing has been shown in support of the said contention. There is nothing to show that the minimum wages prescribed under G.O. Ms. No.33, dated 06.03.1991 are not applicable to the case of the petitioner. The other contentions that the petitioner was found guilty and he was terminated on the allegation of misappropriating some amount or that he was removed from service after holding a domestic enquiry and that initially he claimed that he worked as accountant which is proved to be incorrect etc., do not deprive the petitioner from claiming the difference of minimum wages. In the circumstances, I do not see any merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The respondent- Corporation is directed to deposit the amount awarded by the lower authority to the applicant, however the amounts already deposited by the respondent-Corporation shall be given credit to. No costs. ___________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 25.11.2010 Nsr