JUDGMENT
K.M. Natarajan, J.
1. These appeals arise out of the orders of acquittal passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Namakkal, reversing the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Paramathi in S.T.C. Nos. 580,581 and 582 of 1984.
2. The respondent was prosecuted for the violation of the provisions of Rule 11 (5) read with Rule 16(b) and Rule 16(4)(i) and Rule 4 (A) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Rules.
3. The learned trial Magistrate came to the conclusion, on the evidence, that the respondent committed offences and convicted him and sentenced him in all the cases. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred the appeals. The learned appellate Judge allowed the appeals in all these three cases, holding that the Shops and Establishments Act is not applicable to Sri Lakshmi Finance Corporation, of which the accused is an employer.
4. Since common question is involved, by consent, these appeals are clubbed together and disposed of. Further, since notice could not be served on the respondent the learned Government Advocate was heard and the appeals are disposed of.
5. Learned Government Advocate submits that the appellate court was wrong in holding that Sri Lakshmi Finance Corporation is not a commercial agency, coming within the purview of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act. He would further submit that the appellate court ought to have followed the decision of this Court in W.P. No. 700 of 1978 by Sathar Sayeed, J. dated 14.9.1978. He also drew the attention of this Court to the judgment dated 4.9.1978 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 340,341 and 351 of 1975, wherein the same learned Judge held that P.S.K. Finance will come within the purview of the Act and Rules. The ratio laid down in the above decision squarely applies to the facts of these cases. Since the incident is of the year 1984 and the conviction was also of the year 1984, this Court does not want to interfere with the order of the acquittal and order fresh trial, since at this length of time, it is enough if correct position of law is declared. Therefore, the reasoning of the lower appellate Court that Sri Lakshmi Finance Corporation does not come within the purview of the Tamil Nadu Shops-and Establishments Act, is not tenable. However, for the reasons stated above, this Court does not want to interfere with order of the acquittal rendered by the lower appellate court.
6. In the result, these appeals fail and shall stand dismissed with the above observation.