ORDER : S.H. Sheth, J. The present opponent filed before the Payment of Wages Authority at Jamnagar Application No. 22 of 1967 for recovering from the present applicants a sum of Rs. 778.32 p. due and payable to him on account of over-time wages and wages for un-enjoyed period of leave. He also included in the said claim salary in lieu of notice which the applicants had not served upon him for discharging him from their service. 2. The Payment of Wages Authority held that the applicants were not "employers" and that, therefore, the case was not governed by the Payment of Wages Act. The opponent's application was, therefore, dismissed by the Authority. 3. The opponent appealed to the District Court at Jamnagar. It was Civil Appeal No. 115 of 1970. 4. The learned District Judge who heard the appeal allowed it and made an order directing the applicants to pay to the opponent a sum of Rs. 544.74p. 5. It is that appellate order which is called in question in this Civil Revision Application. 6. The learned District Judge held that the set-up where the applicants were carrying on business of preparing and selling tea was a "commercial establishment" as well as a "shop" within the meaning of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act. 1948. 7. The question which the learned District Judge has decided arose under the following circumstances. The applicants have got a wheelbarrow or a Renkadi near Grain Market in the City of Jamnagar, they are preparing tea therein and selling it to their customers. The opponent was employed by them to assist them in this business of theirs. So far as the structure of the Renkadi is concerned, the following finding has been recorded by the learned District Judge to describe it. "If we look to the photograph which is produced at Ex. 46. there remains no doubt whatsoever that the `Renkadi' of the respondent is undoubtedly having more or less a fixed and stationary abode at the place and instead of having pillar or a concrete foundation as its base it has wheels as its base. I do not think that this by any way would take out the premises of the respondents from the definition of a "shop" or a "Commercial establishment". I do not think that this by any way would take out the premises of the respondents from the definition of a "shop" or a "Commercial establishment". So far as the nature of business carried on by the applicants in their Renkadi is concerned, the following finding has been recorded by the learned District Judge. "It is an admitted position, and the learned P. W. Authority also found that tea is sold at the "Renkadi" of the respondents." 8. Mr. Dave, appearing for the applicants, has tried to argue before me with great stress and vehemence that the latter finding recorded by the learned District Judge as if it is based upon an admission made by the parties is erroneous and perverse. So far as the said finding is concerned it was never argued before the learned District Judge that there was no evidence on record to support that finding. There is no reason for me to believe that if it was not an admitted position the learned District Judge would go out of his way to record it in the terms in which he has done. I, therefore accept both the findings of fact recorded by the learned District Judge. 9. The question is whether this Renkadi where the applicants have been carrying on business can be said to be an "establishment" within the meaning of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 so as to attract the provisions of Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act to confer jurisdiction upon the Payment of Wages Authority to entertain this application. Sub-section (4) of Section 1 of the Payment of Wages Act does not render the provisions of the said Act applicable to such business setups. So far as sub-section (5) of Section 1 is concerned, it has not been shown to me whether any notification has been issued by the State Government extending the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act to such establishments. Mr. Vyas has however, invited my attention to Section 38 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act 1948. It empowers the State Government to direct by a notification that subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of Section 38 the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act shall apply to all or any class of establishment in such local areas which may be specified in the notification. The State Government is also required. It empowers the State Government to direct by a notification that subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of Section 38 the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act shall apply to all or any class of establishment in such local areas which may be specified in the notification. The State Government is also required. under the said section, to specify whether the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act shall apply to all or any class of employees to which or whom the provisions of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act. 1948 a only for the time being. This Act was applied to Saurashtra area of the State of Gujarat with effect from 1st July 1962. Prior to it the Saurashtra Shops and Establishments Act, 1955 was applicable to the said area. Under Section 38 of the said Act. which corresponds to Section 38 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948, a notification was issued by the Government of Bombay by which the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 were applied to `all establishments' within the limits of Rajkot Municipal Borough. Jamnagar Municipal Borough and Bhavnagar Municipal Borough. Before both the Courts below the arguments proceeded on the basis that the said notification was continued in force even after the Saurashtra Shops and Establishments Act. 1955 was repealed and the provisions of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act. 1948 were extended to it. No attempt was made by any of the parties in the Courts below to show whether any fresh notification in supersession of the aforesaid notification was issued by the Government of Gujarat after the provisions of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 were extended to the Saurashtra region of State of Gujarat with effect from 1962. I, therefore, proceed to decide this case on the basis that the notification issued by the Bombay Government on 18th June, 1958 under the Saurashtra Shops and Establishments Act, 1955 to which I have referred has been continued in force after the provisions of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act. 1948 were extended to the Saurashtra region of the State of Gujarat. 10. The applicants have been carrying on their business of preparing and selling tea in their Renkadi in the City of Jamnagar. Indisputably, therefore, the said notification governs the business carried on by the applicants. 1948 were extended to the Saurashtra region of the State of Gujarat. 10. The applicants have been carrying on their business of preparing and selling tea in their Renkadi in the City of Jamnagar. Indisputably, therefore, the said notification governs the business carried on by the applicants. The question which has been argued before me is whether the business of preparing and selling tea carried on by the applicants in their Renkadi is an "establishment" within the meaning of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948. If it is an "establishment", then the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act apply to it by virtue of the aforesaid notification. "Establishment" has been defined by subsection (8) of Section 2 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 in the following terms. "Establishment" means a shop, commercial establishment, residential hotel, restaurant, eating house, theatre, or other place of public amusement or entertainment to which this Act applies and includes such other establishment as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be an establishment for the purposes of this Act." I have reproduced in the foregoing parts of this Judgment the nature of the set-up which the applicants have. The question which has been raised before me is whether it can be called a "shop" or a "commercial establishment" so as to bring it within the definition of the expression "establishment". "Shop" has been defined by sub-section (27) of Section 2 in the following terms. ""shop" means any premises where goods are sold, either by retail or wholesale or where services, are rendered to customers, and includes an office, a store room, godown. warehouse or work place, whether in the same premises or otherwise, mainly used in connection with such trade or business but does not include a factory, a commercial establishment, residential hotel, restaurant, eating house, theatre or other place of public amusement or entertainment." 11. Mr. Dave has contended before me that the set-up owned and operated by the applicants is not a "shop" because it is not "premises" within the meaning of the said definition. He has also contended before me that at the Renkadi itself no goods are sold either by retail or wholesale and no services are rendered to customers there. Mr. Dave has contended before me that the set-up owned and operated by the applicants is not a "shop" because it is not "premises" within the meaning of the said definition. He has also contended before me that at the Renkadi itself no goods are sold either by retail or wholesale and no services are rendered to customers there. So far as his second contention is concerned, in view of the admitted position in the terms in which the learned District Judge has recorded the finding and which I have reproduced in the foregoing parts of this Judgment, it is difficult to say that the applicants have not been selling tea and carrying on their business at the Renkadi itself. I have, however, to consider whether the said Renkadi is "premises" so as to render it as "shop" within the meaning of the definition given in sub-section (27) of Section 2. "Premises", according to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, means "houses, lands, or tenements." It is difficult to say that within the ambit of the meanings assigned to the expression "premises". Renkadi though it may be planted in the soil is "premises". 12. Mr. Dave has invited my attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in Kalidas Dhaniibhai v. The State of Bombay, A.I.R. 1955 SC 62. While interpreting sub-section (27) of Section 2 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 the Supreme Court has laid down that the very idea of a shoo in that connotation betokens a room or a place or a building where goods are sold. In that case what was contended was that the set-up which the appellant owned was not the place where goods were sold. The emphasis in that case was more upon fact whether goods were sold at the premises than upon the type and nature of the premises. The definition of the expression "shop" given in sub-section (27) of Section 2 of the Bombay Shoos and Establishments Act, 1948 lays down that it must be premises where goods are sold and business is carried on. I cannot say by any stretch of imagination that this Renkadi betokens a room or a building. However, I am not able to derive any support from this decision of the Supreme Court for the purpose of the present case. I cannot say by any stretch of imagination that this Renkadi betokens a room or a building. However, I am not able to derive any support from this decision of the Supreme Court for the purpose of the present case. It has not been laid down in that decision as to what `place' in that context means. Reiving, therefore, upon the meanings assigned to the expression "premises" by the Concise Oxford Dictionary. I am of the opinion that the Renkadi of the applicants cannot be called a "shop" within the meaning of sub-sec. (27) Section 2. The finding recorded by the learned District Judge to the contrary therefore, cannot be sustained and it; must be set aside. 13. Mr. Vyas has, however, argued that in any case it is a "commercial establishment" within the meaning of sub-section (4) of Section 2. "Commercial establishment" has been defined by the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 in the following terms. ""Commercial establishment" means an establishment which carries on any business, trade or profession or any work in connection with, or incidental, or ancillary to, any business, trade or profession and includes a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. 1860 and a charitable or other trust, whether registered or not. which carries on whether for purposes of gain or not, any business, trade or profession or work in connection with or incidental or ancillary thereto but does not include a factory. shop, residential hotel, restaurant, eating house, theatre or other place of public amusement or entertainment." In order to call a set-up by the description of "Commercial establishment" two ingredients must be satisfied. Firstly, there must be an establishment and secondly, it must be carrying on business, trade or profession or any work in connection with or incidental or ancillary to any business, trade or profession. The definition of "Establishment" takes me to the definition of "Commercial establishment". The expression "Establishment" is wider in connotation than the expression "Commercial establishment." Therefore, in order to understand what "establishment" means and connotes I have got to examine the expression "Commercial establishment" which is one of its species. But the definition of "Commercial establishment" also uses the expression `establishment'. If the expression "Establishment" takes me to the expression "Commercial establishment" and if the expression "Commercial establishment" takes me to `establishment' it will create a vicious circle and it cannot be broken. But the definition of "Commercial establishment" also uses the expression `establishment'. If the expression "Establishment" takes me to the expression "Commercial establishment" and if the expression "Commercial establishment" takes me to `establishment' it will create a vicious circle and it cannot be broken. It would amount to arguing in circle. Therefore, in order to understand what "Establishment" means, I must examine the definition of "Commercial establishment" as the former is the genus and the latter is the species. But the reverse process cannot be adopted. 'Establishment' used in the definition of "Commercial establishment" cannot bear the meaning which has been assigned to "Establishment" in the definition of that expression. Therefore, the expression `establishment' used in the definition of "Commercial establishment" bears the ordinary meaning. In my opinion, it means a set-up. The Renkadi in which the applicants have been carrying on their business of preparing and selling tea is certainly a set-up. In that Renkadi they have been preparing tea and selling it to their customers out of which indisputably they make profit. It is undoubtedly a business indeed on a very small scale, which they have been carrying on. Therefore the two ingredients of the expression "Commercial establishment' as defined by Sub-section (4) of Section 2 are satisfied. In my opinion, therefore, the Renkadi owned by `the applicants is a "Commercial establishment" within the meaning of Sub-section I (4) of Section 2 and therefore, an "Establishment" within the meaning of sub-s. (8) of Section 2. Since I hold that it is a "Commercial establishment", it cannot be a "shop" because the definition of "Commercial establishment" expressly does not include a shop. In that view of the matter, the aforesaid notification issued by the Government of Bombay applies to the instant case and. therefore, the provisions of the Payment of of Wages Act govern the applicants' aforesaid business set-up. The Payment of Wages Authority, therefore, had the jurisdiction to entertain the application which the opponent made for recovery of his wages. This was the only point which was argued before the Payment of Wages Authority and before the learned District Judge and it is the only point which has been argued before me. 14. Mr. The Payment of Wages Authority, therefore, had the jurisdiction to entertain the application which the opponent made for recovery of his wages. This was the only point which was argued before the Payment of Wages Authority and before the learned District Judge and it is the only point which has been argued before me. 14. Mr. Dave has, however, invited my attention to a Full Bench decision of the Punjab High Court in Ram Chander Baru Ram v. The State, A.I.R. 1963 Puni 148 (FB) in which the expression "Commercial establishment" has been considered. The definition of that expression as given in Section 2 (iv) of the Punjab Shops and Commercial Establishments Act. 1958 is materially different from the definition of that expression given in sub-section (4) of Section 2 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948. The definition of that expression in the said Punjab Act is as under. "Commercial establishment" means any premises wherein any business, trade, or profession is carried on for profit, and includes journalistic or printing establishments and premises in which business of banking insurance stocks and shares brokerage or produce exchange is carried on or which is used as hotel, restaurant, boarding or eating house, theatre, cinema or other place of public entertainment or any other place which the Government may declare, by notification in the official Gazette to be a commercial establishment for the purposes of this Act." The definition given in the Punjab Act is different from the definition given in the Bombay Act inasmuch as the element of "premises" has been introduced in the Punjab definition while that element has not been introduced in the Bombay definition. Secondly the Punjab definition emphasizes the fact that `commercial establishment' means any premises wherein any business, trade or profession is carried on for profit. On the other hand, the Bombay definition states that it is an establishment which carries on any business, trade or profession. The third difference between the two definitions is that whereas the expression "for profit" has been introduced in the Punjab definition. I do not find a similar expression in the Bombay definition. The ratio of the said Full Bench decision of the Punjab High Court turns upon the use of the expressions "premises", "wherein" and "for profit". Since those elements are not introduced in the Bombay definition of the expression "Commercial establishment". I do not find a similar expression in the Bombay definition. The ratio of the said Full Bench decision of the Punjab High Court turns upon the use of the expressions "premises", "wherein" and "for profit". Since those elements are not introduced in the Bombay definition of the expression "Commercial establishment". I am unable to make any use of that decision for the purpose of deciding the present case. 15. For the reasons which I have stated in this judgment and not for the reasons recorded by the learned District Judge in his judgment. I confirm the finding of the District Court on the point, and its impugned order. 16. The Revision Application, therefore, fails and Rule is discharged with costs. Revision dismissed.