JUDGMENT 1. - Since the aforesaid two writ petitions raise a common question of law and the facts of both these writ petitions are almost the same excepting the name of the respondent No. 3 and the duration of their service period, as such these writ petitions are decided by this common judgment by dealing with the facts contained in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1796 of 1991. 2. The petitioners, by this writ petitions, have challenged the order dated January 1, 1991, passed by the Authority appointed under the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, Bikancr Region, Bikaner, by which the learned Authority allowed the applications filed by the non-petitioners Ram Chandra Choudhary and Bhanwar Lal and quashed the order dated August 21, 1986, passed by petitioner M/s. Rajmata Badheliji Surdanshan Kumariji of Bikaner Trust, Junagarh, Bikaner (for short, 'the Trust'), terminating the services of the applicants Ram Chandra Choudhary and Bhanwar Lal and directing the non-applicant (petitioner) to reinstate them in service with all the back wages and the benefit of continuity of service. 3. Respondents Ram Chandra Choudhary and Bhanwar Lal filed an application under Section 28-A of the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1958 (for short, 'the Act') before the Authority appointed under the Act. It was averred in the application that the applicants were appointed by the Secretary of the petitioner Trust as Chowkidars on a monthly salary of Rs. 200/- in the month of September, 1984, and their work was satisfactory but the non-applicant (the petitioner in these writ petitions) without assigning any reasons, terminated their services by the verbal order dated August 21, 1986. Before terminating the services of the applicants Ram Chandra Choudhary and Bhanwar Lal, neither one month's notice, as required under the law, was given to them, nor one month's pay in lieu of the notice was paid to them nor were the applicants served with any charge-sheet. As the applicants have served the non-applicant for more than six months, the termination of their services was in contravention of the mandatory provisions of the law and, therefore, they are entitled for reinstatement in service: along with all the back wages. The Trust filed reply to those applications. As the applicants have served the non-applicant for more than six months, the termination of their services was in contravention of the mandatory provisions of the law and, therefore, they are entitled for reinstatement in service: along with all the back wages. The Trust filed reply to those applications. It was stated in the reply that the Trust does not fall within the definition of the words 'shop' or the "commercial establishment' and, therefore, no application under Section 28A of the Act can be filed before the Authority appointed under the Act and, therefore, the Authority has no jurisdiction to entertain those applications. It was also stated in the reply that the applicants were appointed on part-time basis to make a round of the Trust property so that somebody may not trespass over the land of the Trust and may not raise any unauthorised construction over the property of the Trust. The applicants worked for 11/2 to 2 hours daily and their term of appointments came to an end on August 21, 1986, and after that period, on account of non-availability of the work with the Trust, their services were terminated and no other person has been appointed on the posts of Chowkidar thereafter. It was also contended that the Trust is a Public Charitable Trust and looking to its object, for which it was established, the provisions of the Act are not applicable to it. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Trust was established for charitable purposes and not for carrying out any trade, business or profession and, therefore, the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the Trust and the learned Authority committed an error in entertaining the applications filed by the applicants and quashing the order of termination of their services. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that the Trust was engaged in the commercial activities as it was selling the land of the Trust by making division of the property in the form of plots and selling the same to the public with a profiteering motive and, therefore, it is a commercial establishment and is covered by the provisions of the Act. It has also been contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that there is no error in the judgment passed by the learned Authority and the learned Authority has given a specific finding that the Trust is engaged in commercial activities and, therefore, no case for interference in the judgment passed by the learned Authority is made-out. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The only question which requires consideration in the present writ petitions is whether the Trust in question, which is a Public Charitable Trust, is covered by provisions of the Act and the application under Section 28-A of the Act, filed by the applicants, were maintainable before the learned Authority or not? The Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1958, has been enacted in order to regulate the conditions of the workers and employees working in a shop or commercial establishment in the State of Rajasthan. Section 2(7) of the Act defines the word 'establishment', which means a shop or a commercial establishment. Section 2(3) of the Act defines the words 'commercial establishment', which means a commercial or trading or banking or insurance establishment, an establishment or administrative service in which the persons employed are mainly engaged in office work, a hotel, a restaurant, boarding or eating house, cafe or any other refreshment house, a theatre or any other place of public amusement or entertainment and includes every such establishment as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be a 'commercial establishment' for the purpose of this Act. Section 2(17) defines the word 'shop', which means any premises where any trade or business is carried-on or where services are rendered to customers, and includes offices, store-rooms, godowns or ware-houses, whether in the same premises or otherwise, used in connection with such trade or business but does not include a commercial establishment or a shop attached to a factory where the persons employed in the shop are allowed the benefits provided for workers under the Factories Act, 1948. The petitioner Trust has been created for the purpose of advancement of education, specially in the matter of ladies, to (i) grant scholarship and making available the books for study; (ii) provide means to needy widows, helpless ladies, orphans etc. The petitioner Trust has been created for the purpose of advancement of education, specially in the matter of ladies, to (i) grant scholarship and making available the books for study; (ii) provide means to needy widows, helpless ladies, orphans etc. so that they may earn their livelihood; (iii) provide training facilities at the place where the Government Institutions do not exist; and (iv) provide drinking water facilities at the place in the desert areas and to help other charitable trusts etc. The Trust has been created for charitable purposes and not for the purpose of doing any commercial activities like running a business, trade or profession or a shop for profiteering motive. The Office of the Trust is situated at Junagarh Palace and in the Official Premises, neither any trade or business activities are carried on or are any services rendered to the customers and, therefore, the office of the Trust does not fall within the definition of the 'shop'. 7. Now, whether the Office of the Trust can be said to be a 'commercial establishment', that has to be seen keeping in mind the definition of the words 'commercial establishment' given under Section 2(3) of the Act. The definition of the words 'commercial establishment', given in Section 2(3) of the Act, is an inclusive definition, which includes the various establishments which can be treated as commercial establishments and includes a commercial or trading or banking or insurance establishment, an establishment or administrative service in which the persons employed are mainly engaged in office work, a hotel, a restaurant, boarding or eating house, cafe or any other refreshment house, a theatre or any other place of public amusement or entertainment and, also, includes any such establishment which is declared as such for the purpose of the Act. The petitioner Trust does not fall within any of the establishments as have been included in Sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Act. Public Charitable Trust or any other trust has not been declared by the State Government as 'commercial establishment' as required under Section 2(3) of the Act. The object of the petitioner Trust is to preserve and promote the interest of the ladies ana needy widows, helpless ladies, orphans etc. and its establishment is not an out-come of profiteering motive or to do any trade or business. The Trust is also not carrying out any commercial activities. The object of the petitioner Trust is to preserve and promote the interest of the ladies ana needy widows, helpless ladies, orphans etc. and its establishment is not an out-come of profiteering motive or to do any trade or business. The Trust is also not carrying out any commercial activities. The decisive test in determining whether the Trust or any other establishment falls within the definition of 'commercial establishment', is the nature of the activities performed by the Trust, If the activities performed by an establishment are regularly and systematically for a business or trade and the place is used for business, trade or profession, which is carried on with a profit motive and the services are rendered to the customers, then such premises can be treated as a 'commercial establishment' or a 'shop' but in the absence of any profit motive or where no commercial activities are being undertaken, then the establishment cannot be said to be a 'shop' or a 'commercial establishment'. The Apex Court, in the case of Dr. Devendra M. Surti v. The State of Gujarat (1969-II-LLJ-116) , while deciding the question, what sort of establishment can be treated as a 'commercial establishment', observed as under (p.120): "The correct test of finding whether a professional activity falls within Section 2(4) of the Act, is whether the activity is systematically and habitually undertaken for production or distribution of goods or for rendering material services to the community or any part of the community with the help of employees in the manner of a trade or business in such an undertaking....... and unless the profession carried on by a person also partakes of the character of a commercial nature, it cannot fall within the ambit of a 'commercial establishment'." Admittedly, the petitioner Trust is not doing any business activities and has been established for charitable purposes to provide scholarship to the ladies and, also, to provide books etc. to them and further to provide means to the widows, helpless ladies and orphans etc. The activities of the Trust cannot be said to be of commercial nature. If for the purpose of carrying out the object of the Trust certain properties of the Trust are sold by it then those activities of selling its own and etc. do not fall within the definition of a commercial establishment'. The activities of the Trust cannot be said to be of commercial nature. If for the purpose of carrying out the object of the Trust certain properties of the Trust are sold by it then those activities of selling its own and etc. do not fall within the definition of a commercial establishment'. The petitioner Trust, thus, cannot be said to be a 'commercial establishment' as the activities performed by the Trust cannot be called 'commercial activities' because for treating an activity a commercial activity, there must be some investment of capital and the activities must be run with a risk of profit or loss and only in that circumstance the activities can be said to be commercial in nature. In this view of the matter, as the Trust is not being used for commercial purposes and the activities of the Trust cannot be said to be commercial activities, the Office of the Trust then does not fall within the definition of a 'shop' or a 'commercial establishment' under the Act and, therefore, the provisions of the Act are not applicable in the present case. As the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the charitable trust, the learned Authority had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the disputes made to it by the applicants Ram Chandra Choudhary and Bhanwar Lal. 8. In the result, the writ petitions, filed by the petitioner Trust, are allowed and the orders dated January 1, 1991, passed by the learned Authority under the Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, Bikaner Region, Bikaner, are quashed and set side and the applications, filed by the applicants (respondent No. 3) Ram Chandra Choudhary and Bhanwar Lal, are dismissed. No order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******