Mohan, J.

1. The short question that arises for consideration in this case, is whether a firm of Architects would be governed by the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Under Section 1(3)(b) of the said Act, it is stated as follows-

It shall apply to-(b) every shop or establishment within the meaning of any law for the time being in force in relation to shops and establishments in a State, in which ten or more persons are employed, or were employed, on any day Of the preceeding twelve months.

2. In this State it is the Tamil Nadu Shops and establishments Act that is in force in relation to the shops and establishments. There is a direct ruling of Srinivasan, J., in M/s. L.M. Chitale and Son by sole surviving partner S. L Chitale v. The Commissioner of Labour, Chepauk, Madras and Ors., I.L.R. holding that the Shops and Establishments Act will not apply to the firm of Architects. That decision has been relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in these writ petitions for certiorari, while the learned Counsel for the respondents would say that it cannot be contended that the ruling can any longer be held to be good law in view of the later rulings of the Supre