ORDER R.S. Pathak, J. - The petitioner, Messrs. Star Paper Mills Limited, manufactures paper at Saharanpur, and for the purpose of that business the State Government has leased a forest in the Kumaun Circle from which the petitioner obtains twisted pine wood and conveys it to its factory. The pine wood is conveyed by Motor Vehicles owned by the petitioner from the interior of the forest to convenient rail-heads from where it proceeds by rail to the factory, or directly by road to the factory. 2. In October, 1963, the petitioner applied under Section 38 (2) (iii) of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 for exemption from the provisions of that Act but the State Government has rejected the representation and has called upon it to apply for registration under the Act. 3. The petitioner now prays for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. The first contention of the petitioner is that it is not a motor transport undertaking and, therefore, the Motor Transport Workers Act has no application. The contention is without substance. Section 1 (4) declares that the Act applies to every motor transport undertaking employing five or more motor transport workers. And Section 2 (g) defines a "motor transport undertaking" as "a motor transport engaged in carrying passengers or goods or both by road for hire or reward, and includes a private carrier". The contention of the petitioner proceeds entirely on the basis that its motor vehicles are not engaged in carrying goods for hire or reward. That may be so, but the definition includes a private carrier within the expression "motor transport undertaking". Section 2 (n) declares that words and expressions used but not defined in the Motor Transport Workers Act and defined in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, shall have the meaning respectively assigned to them in the latter. Turning to the Motor Vehicles Act, a "private carrier" has been defined as "an owner of a transport vehicle other than a public carrier who uses that vehicle solely for the carriage of goods which are his property or the carriage of which is necessary for the purposes of his business, not being a business of providing transport." It is clear, I think, that the motor vehicles owned and employed by the petitioner for the purpose of conveying the pine wood from the forest are private carriers within the meaning of that definition. In the circumstances, it cannot be disputed that the petitioner owns a motor transport undertaking. It is urged that even assuming that the motor vehicles operated by the petitioner are private carriers, the Motor Transport Workers Act does not apply because it relates to undertakings engaged in the business of transport. That, it seems to me, is inconsistent with the definition of a "private carrier." 5. It is then pointed out by the petitioner that according to Section 1 (4) of the Act a motor transport undertaking must employ motor transport workers in order to attract the provisions of the Act, and, it is urged the employees engaged by the petitioner for plying the motor vehicles, being the employees of an establishment to which the U.P. Shops and Commercial Establishments Act applies, cannot be treated as motor transport workers. A motor transport worker has been defined in Section 2 of the Act as a person employed in a motor transport undertaking to work in a professional capacity but it does not include a person employed in a factory defined in the Factories Act, 1948 nor a person to whom the provisions "of any law for the time being in force regulating the conditions of service of persons employed in shops or commercial establishments apply." The question then is whether the staff employed by the petitioner in connection with the operation of the motor vehicles are persons to whom the provisions of the U.P. Shops and Commercial Establishments Act apply. The case of the petitioner is that the U.P. Shops and Commercial Establishments Act applies because the establishment owned by the petitioner is commercial establishment. A commercial establishment under Section 2 (4) of that Act, means "any premises not being the premises of a factory, or a shop, wherein any trade, business, manufacture or any work in connection with, or incidental or ancillary thereto, is carried on for profit and includes a premises . . . . . . where the clerical and other establishment of the factory, to whom the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948, do not apply, work." Upon the material on the record, it appears that the petitioner operates two distinct wings, the factory and the forest department. On the petitioner's own case the forest department is independent of the factory. . . . . where the clerical and other establishment of the factory, to whom the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948, do not apply, work." Upon the material on the record, it appears that the petitioner operates two distinct wings, the factory and the forest department. On the petitioner's own case the forest department is independent of the factory. It is pointed out in the supplementary rejoinder affidavit that "the forest department which is responsible for the supplying of raw materials to the mills at Saharanpur is quite independent from the factory/mills . . . . . . . . ." From the aforesaid it would be seen that the company has two establishments, one for supplying raw material and the other for manufacturing paper, each independent of the other. Paragraph 51 of that affidavit avers that "the accounts of the forest department are audited separately and are merged in the balance sheet of the company by its Head Office at `Calcutta'. The Forest Department has a separate telegraphic address and separate telephone. the pay/salary and terms and conditions of the employees of forest department are separate from those of the mills. The forest headquarters at Saharanpur administers the forest department and has a separate administrative unit at Ramnagar." Upon these facts it seems clear beyond dispute that the forest department has been treated as a separate establishment from the factory. The next question is whether the forest department itself can. be treated as a "commercial establishment" within the meaning of Section 2 (4). To fall within that definition, the forest department must be shown to occupy premises wherein "any work in connection with or incidental or ancillary to" any trade, business or manufacture "is carried on for profit". It must be an establishment where the work is carried on for profit. That test is not satisfied. There is no dispute that the motor vehicles are employed by the petitioner only for the purpose of conveying pine wood to the factory, and there is nothing to show that as between the forest department and the factory any transactions in the nature of business are carried on. To my mind, the forest department is not an establishment which satisfies the definition set out in Section 2 (4). 6. To my mind, the forest department is not an establishment which satisfies the definition set out in Section 2 (4). 6. The petitioner then urges that having regard to Section 2 (4) the forest department is an establishment which satisfies the description "where the clerical and other establishment of a factory, to whom the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948, do not apply, work". This applies to the establishment of a factory. In my opinion, the forest department is an independent establishment separate from the factory and is not a part of it. 7. In this view, I must hold that the forest department is not a commercial establishment to which the U.P. Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961 applies. 8. The respondents have urged that the U.P. Shops and Commercial Establishments Act does not apply to the forest department because the area of operation of the motor vehicles does not fall within the municipal limits of either Saharanpur or Ramnagar or Kashipur. Another contention is that the drivers employed in connection with the motor vehicles perform work which is inherently intermittent and, therefore, the case does not fall within the provisions of the U.P. Shops and Commercial Establishments Act. Inasmuch as the contentions raised by the petitioner have not found favour with me, it is not necessary to express any opinion on the pleas now raised by the respondents. 9. The petition fails and is dismissed with costs.