- (1.) THIS Special Appeal is directed against the order dated December 3, 1991 of the learned Single Judge of this Court Under the aforesaid order the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein, Agriculture Market Committee, Alwar (for short the Agriculture Market Committee) against the order dated August 16, 1991 made on the application under Section 28-A (2) of the Rajas than Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958 (for short, the Act ). The said application was filed before the Prescribed Authority under the Act (for short, the Prescribed Authority) by Kishorilal (respondent No. 2 herein ).
(2.) KISHORILAL, respondent No. 2 herein, filed an application under Section 28-A (2) of the Act before the Prescribed Authority in which a case was set up that he was appointed on the post of Class IV in the office of the appellant herein and he continued Jo work on that post upto February 22, 1989 and without any notice his services were terminated on February 22, 1989. The said claim of the respondent No. 2 was contested by the appellant herein and it was denied that the respondent No. 2 was appointed on the post of Class IV but it was admitted that the respondent No. 2 was appointed for the purpose of cleaning the office on dai-y wages. He having been appointed for specific job after the need for the specific job came to an end, he was removed from the service and therefore it was not necessary for the appellant to give any notice to him before removing him from service. The jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority to entertain the claim was also challenged on the ground that the appellant was not covered under the definition of 'commercial establishment* as per the meaning of the Act. The Prescribed Authority framed two issues, issue No. 1 was as to whether the office of the appellant is a Shop and Commercial Establishment under the Act and second to what relief the respondent No. 2 was entitled? Learned Prescribed Authority decided the issue No. 1 in favour of the respondent No. 2 and held that it was a commercial establishment under the Act. Dealing with the issue No. 2, it came to the conclusion that the respondent No. 2 was appointed as a peon and he was removed without any prior notice and his removal was not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Consequently, the Prescribed Authority allowed the claim of the respondent No. 2 and directed the appellant to take the respondent No. 2 in service within 30 days and the respondent No. 2 was held entitled for back-wages.
(3.) THE said order of the Prescribed Authority was challenged by the appellant by filing the S. B. Civil Writ Petition and the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and upheld the order of the Prescribed Authority.;