Veerender Singh Siradhana, J. - (1.) THE instant writ application witnesses a challenge to the order dated 30th June, 1997, passed by the Authority under the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1958, Ajmer, wherein the management of the Hotel Mansingh Palace, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner -employer), has been directed to reinstate Shri Amar Singh (hereinafter referred to as respondent -employee), with continuity of service and further to make payment for the period, he worked in the month of March and April, 1991.
(2.) BRIEFLY , the indispensable skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised herein needs to be first noticed. The respondent -employee was engaged as a casual worker on daily wages basis. The employment was terminated in the month of April, 1991. The respondent -employee instituted proceedings under Section 28A of the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1958', for short), assailing his alleged termination from services as illegal and invalid. The respondent -employee also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of delay in instituting the complaint. The delay was condoned. Taking into consideration pleadings of the parties, evidence tendered and after hearing the counsel for the parties; the Authority vide impugned order dated 30th June, 1997, held the termination of employment of the respondent -employee, by a verbal order dated 26th April, 1991, as illegal and invalid. Learned counsel for the petitioner -employer reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application contended that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the settled principles of law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land. It is further contended that the complaint instituted under Section 28A of the Act of 1958, was not maintainable for the respondent -employee did not work for six months and further there was no order of dismissal or discharge rather the respondent -employer abandoned the job. The impugned order dated 30th June, 1997, has also been assailed for that there is no evidence about the alleged date of termination of the employment of the respondent -employee. The findings arrived at by the authority as to the date of termination being 26th April, 1991, are perverse and contrary to the material available on record. Further, the respondent -employee has pleaded contrary facts in the face of evidence brought on record.
(3.) IT is further urged that the respondent -employee failed to prove the factum of termination of his employment on 26th April, 1991. Referring to the statements of the respondent -employee and the Assistant Personal Manager, the learned counsel would submit that the entire record with reference to attendance of the petitioner was available and produced before the Authority; but no effort was made on behalf of the respondent -employee to prove the factum of date of termination of his employment allegedly by a verbal order on 26th April, 1991. In support of his submissions the learned counsel has placed reliance on the opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manager RBI, Bangalore v. S. Money and Ors; : 2005(105) FLR 1067; R.M. Yellatti v. Assistant Executive Engineer : 2006(1) SCC 106; and in the case of Utter Pradesh State Electricity Board and another v. Aziz Ahmed; : 2009(2) SCC 606.;