P. R. GOKULAKRISHNAN, J. ( 1 ) THIS Special Civil Application is to quash the award dated 28-10-1955 of the Special Labour Court Ahmedabad in Reference (LC/ida-D) No. 4 of 1985. The Labour Court had occasion to consider as to whether the Vastrapur branch of the Ahmedabad Panjrapole Sanstha is a commercial establishment or not and as to whether the employees therein have to be paid the minimum wages. After elaborately discussing the evidence on record the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner herein has to pay the basic pay of Rs. 300. 00 per month to the compounder basic pay of Rs. 250. 00 per month to other workers not being watchmen or women workers and Rs. 200. 00 basic pay per month to women workers an watchmen. It is as against this order that the present Special Civil Application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 2 ) MR. Vakil the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner elaborately argued as to the applicability of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act 1948 (Bombay Act No. LXXIX of 1948) and contended that this Vastrapur branch establishment cannot be a commercial establishment and as such it cannot be said that the Minimum Wages Act is applicable. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply v. A. Rajappa 1978 (1) L. L. J. 349 it has been rightly held by the Labour Court that petitioner. Panjarapole is an industry as defined by sec. 2 (j) of the I. D. Act 1947 In fairness to Mr. Vakil for the petitioner he did not seriously take up this contention. However his main thrust of the argument was that even assuming that the petitioner is an industry the Vastrapur establishment is an independent and separate one and as such it cannot be said that it is a commercial establishment. According to the learned counsel such type of establishments are being run on philanthropic basis and as such there is no `commercial activity in the same. We are afraid we cannot accept this argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. ( 3 ) THE Labour Court has considered all the evidence thread bare and has come to the conclusion that the main activity of the petitioner herein is to care for sick and lame cattle and to maintain them. We are afraid we cannot accept this argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. ( 3 ) THE Labour Court has considered all the evidence thread bare and has come to the conclusion that the main activity of the petitioner herein is to care for sick and lame cattle and to maintain them. By the constitution of the Sanstha produced at Ex. 16 it is stated that the main object of the Sanstha is as stated therein. Studying the constitution of the Sanstha Ex. 16 one finds that over and above the above mentioned object the petitioner has other objects also and in those other objects are included such as raising of cattle improving the breed caring for the cattle which come to the Panjrapole so they can be of use to others to run a dairy farm in order to supply good milk and ghee in the interest of the public etc. Furthermore the other objects of the Sanstha are to do agricultural operations to grow grass to cut it or have it cut and to buy or sell the same or to store it. Also from the evidence the Labour Court found that the Sanstha has a lot of land in different villages. Further it has found from the records that the Sanstha has produced its audited report Ex. 8/2 and 8/3. From this report it is evident that the Sanstha has rental and other income and also agricultural income. The Sanstha also earns income from selling wool wood manure etc. ( 4 ) THE definition of commercial establishment as given in sec. 2 (4) of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act 1948 reads as follows:"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". ( 5 ) IF we take the activities of the petitioner herein there cannot be any doubt that the activities will fall under the definition of the Commercial establishment squarely attracting the Minimum Wages Act. Mr. Vakil the learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Labour Court has no particulars for fixing the basic pay to various categories of workmen for which it has fixed the basic pay. Even this argument cannot be correct in as much as the Labour Court in paragraphs 23 and 24 of the order has elaborately discussed as to how the compounder and other workmen have to be paid basic wage per month. We are in complete agreement with the said reasoning and finding of the Labour Court. ( 6 ) AS far as the argument that the Vastrapur Sanstha is a separate establishment goes we do not find any substance in the said argument. The mere fact that the cattle are put at Vastrapur for the purpose of treatment cannot make it a separate establishment in as much as the workmen who have come forward for the minimum wages look to the petitioner alone as their employer and have demanded the minimum wages. The mere fact that the other branches of the petitioner herein have not demanded the minimum wages will not in any away affect the right of the workmen at Vastrapur establishment to demand minimum wages nor absolve the liability of the petitioner in paying the minimum wages The Labour Court has correctly assessed all these aspects of the case and has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is a commercial establishment liable to pay the minimum wages as per the Act. ( 7 ) WE do not find any question of law much less any error apparent on the face of the record for us to interfere with the well considered reasoning and finding arrived at by the Labour Court. ( 8 ) FOR all these reasons the Special Civil Application fails and the same is dismissed. (ATP) application dismissed: Rule discharged. .