Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is the Child Development Centre represented by its Project Director. The Centre is functioning under the Hobart School Campus in Ooty, Nilgiris District. The said Centre is established by Church of South India through the Coimbatore Diocese Counsel. In this writ petition, they have challenged the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coonoor in TNSC No.1 of 2003. 2. It is seen from the records that the first respondent filed an appeal under Section 41 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 (for short Shops Act) before the second respondent. The said appeal was taken on file as TNSC No.1 of 2003. The authority after notice to the petitioner Management allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the petitioner. Before the authority, it was contended that the first respondent, being Project Manager not an employee and that argument was rejected. However, the fundamental question that whether the provisions of Shops Act will apply to the case of the petitioner was never considered by the authority. 3. When the matter came up on 25.06.2008, while ordering notice of motion, this Court granted an interim stay. Thereafter, on 03.12.2008, interim stay was made absolute. However, the writ petition was admitted on 18.08.2008. Subsequently, by an order dated 28.08.2009, this Court directed payment of last drawn wages in terms of Section 17-B of the I.D. Act. 4. Considering the fact that the petitioner establishment was established by CSI Diocese, Coimbatore as Community Project and also it was funded by various Donor agencies, the fundamental question whether the said institution is covered by the provisions of the Shops Act has to be considered by the authority before he takes on to the jurisdiction to provide relief to the first respondent. In this context, it is necessary to refer to the judgment of the Kerala High Court reported in 1991 II L.L.J. 780 [Augustine Mathai v. Appellate Authority], wherein, the Kerala High Court held that for the purpose of coverage under the Shops Act, there must be commercial motive and it was held that church is not a commercial establishment under the provisions of the Kerala Shops and Establishment Act. The said view was confirmed by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court reported in 1999 II LLJ 314 [Augustine Mathai v. Appellate Authority and another]. The said view was confirmed by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court reported in 1999 II LLJ 314 [Augustine Mathai v. Appellate Authority and another]. In that case, the Division Bench held that the Church is not a commercial establishment and it is not a shop within the meaning of the Act. The Kerala Shops and Establishment Act is modelled on the basis of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act. Unless the petitioner comes within the meaning of commercial establishment under Section 2(6) of the Shops Act and also a person within the meaning of Section 2(12) of the Shops Act, the question of maintainability of the appeal is highly doubtful. The authority has not gone into the issue before deciding the matter whether any relief can be given to the first respondent. 5. In that view of the matter, the writ petition stands allowed. The case in TNSC No.1 of 2003 is remanded for fresh disposal by the second respondent before going into the merits of the case. The second respondent is directed to consider whether the activities of the petitioner establishment comes within the purview of the Shops Act and thereafter decide the merits of the case.