JUDGMENT :

SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

1. The appellant before this Court has filed this present writ appeal being aggrieved by the order dated 19.08.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.17619 of 2019.

2. The facts of the case reveal that the appellant institution is undisputedly an educational institution and the respondent No.3/employee was appointed in the year 1985 as an Attender in the Nutrition Lab Department. She tendered her resignation on 18.12.2009 and service dues were also settled.

3. The respondent No.3/employee preferred an Appeal before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Labour Circle-IV, Authority under Telangana Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 stating that she was illegally terminated by the appellant institution and the said Appeal was preferred with a delay of more than 2500 days. The appellant institution filed a counter affidavit. It was stated before the appellate authority that it was the respondent No.3/employee who had tendered her resignation, her dues have been settled and Appeal deserves to be dismissed. It was further contended by the appellant institution before the appellate authority that the Appeal preferred by the respondent No.3/employee under Section 48(1) of the Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 is not maintainable. In spite of the aforesaid ground, the Appeal was allowed by an Order dated 24.07.2019 directing the appellant institution to reinstate the respondent No.3/employee with full back wages. The appellant institution preferred a writ petition stating that the appellant institution is not an establishment and is not covered under the provisions of the Shops and Establishments Act. However, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour under Section 48(3) of the Shops and Establishments Act. The Order passed by the learned Single Judge is under challenge.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the records.

5. The undisputed facts reveal that the appellant institution before this Court is an educational institution and the respondent No.3/employee was appointed in 1985. She tendered resignation on 18.12.2009.

6. The basic question which requires to be answered in the present case is whether an educational institution is covered within the meaning and definition ‘establishment’ as defined under Section 2(10) of the Telangana Shops and Establishments Act, 1988. Section 2(10) of the said Act is reproduced as under:-

“2(10) ‘Establishment’ means a shop, restaurant, eating-house, residential hotel, lodging house, theatre or any place of public amusement or entertainment and includes a commercial establishment and such other establishment as the Government may, by notification, declare to be an establishment for the purposes of this Act.”

7. Undisputedly, the institution in question is governed by the provisions of the Telangana Education Act, 1982 and the said Act provides for redressal of grievance of the nature involved in the present writ appeal.

8. Whether an educational institution falls within the meaning of ‘establishment’ or not, has been looked into by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ruth Soren v. Managing Committee, (2001) 2 SCC 115. In the aforesaid case, a similar definition under the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1953 was considered. Section 2(6) of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act is reproduced as under:-

“2(6) “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 -

(i) Administrative or clerical service appertaining to such establishment;

(ii) A shop, restaurant, residential hotel, eating house, theatre or any place of public amusement or entertainment; and a society Registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860 charitable or other trust, whether registered or not which carries on