The definition of 'commercial establishment' in the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act 1947 is broad and includes any establishment that carries on a commercial activity, even if it does not have a fixed place of business.

RAMAPRASADA RAO, J.

1. The petitioner in W.P. No. 4452 of 1974 questions the jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner for Workmens Compensation, Madras, to entertain an appeal filed by its employee-first respondent under S. 41 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act 1947, hereinafter called the Act. The first respondent was entertained by the petitioner-company as its Madras representative in or about February 1969. The first respondents services were terminated with effect from 28th February 1971. On the ground that no reasonable cause has been adduced for such termination and as the prescribed mandate under S. 41 of the Act was not complied with, the first respondent questioned the validity of the order of termination of service. The petitioners case is that the first respondent was appointed purely on a temporary basis and for purposes of experimenting its project for expansion and that the intention from the beginning was that the post filled up by the first respondent in connection with such expansion could be abolished if they could not achieve the objective for expansion of their trade. As the project did not produce satisfactory results, the petitioner wanted to close down the Madras office and this resulted in the termination of the temporary and experimental service of the first respondent. On that ground it is said that the order of termination is justified. The second and the more formidable ground on which the writ petition rested was that the Additional Commissioner for Workmens Compensation (second respondent) who entertained the appeal under S. 41 of the Act had no jurisdiction to grant the first respondent any relief, as he was not a ‘person employed’ under the Act. On merits the petitioner also stated that the first respondent was in the position of a Manager and his work involved touring and canvassing and that there was no establishment as such to which he was allotted. On the above grounds the appeal before the second respondent was contested. The second respondent held that he had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and that the tours undertaken by the employee was only incidental to his main work and as the prescriptions laid down under S. 41(1) of the Act were not complied with, he set aside the order of termination. As against the order of the second respondent, the petitioner filed the Writ Petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution and sought for a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order of the second) respondent dated 22nd May 1973.

2. The main argument be fore the Appellate Authority was that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The second respondent would not agree with the contention. The first respondent contended to the contrary and Mohan, J. after a review of judicial precedents quoted before him, found that the Additional Commissioner for Workmens Compensation did not consider the question whether there was any reasonable cause given by the employer in terminating the services of the employee. In those circumstances, he remitted the subject matter for disposal by the second respondent in accordance with the principles laid down in the well-known decisions of our court. Against this order of remittal, the present appeal has been filed.

3. Mr. B. Kalyanasundaram, appearing for the appellant, did not raise any question on the merits and he made it clear that he was only on the legal question whether the second respondent as the Appellate Authority constituted under S. 41 of the Act, had the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The substantial contention raised before us is that the Act would not apply to the petitioner establishments as it is beyond the State of Tamil Nadu. Secondly it is said that it is not a commercial establishment at all and even otherwise it has no premises of its own in Madras to compel the petitioner to follow the prescriptions as regards the termination of service of its employees as set in S. 41 of the Act.

4. Regarding the first