1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR D.B. Civil Special Appeal(Writ) No. 152/1997 Rajasthan State Co-operative Housing Federation Limited Versus The Prescribed Authority & Another. 13.08.2009 Hon'ble Mr.R.C.Gandhi,J. Hon'ble Mr. K.S. Chaudhari,J. Mr. J.P. Sharma and Mr. R.K. Tongawat, for the appellant. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Sharma, for the respondent. (Oral) This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 27.09.1996 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 789/1991 whereby the writ petition of the appellant-petitioner was dismissed. 2. Respondent No. 2, Prem Prakash Jain, was appointed by the Managing Director vide order dated 13.11.1984 as a daily wager @ Rs. 20/- per day to work as Typist. The order of engagement contained a stipulation that services of the Respondent No. 2 can be terminated any time. His service were terminated by the Managing Director on 29.06.1985, on the ground that his 2 services are no more required, under Section 28-A of the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958(for short 'the Act of 1958'). 3. The Respondent No. 2(for short “the Respondent”) invoking Section 28-A(2)(a) of the Act of 1958 filed a complaint under Section 28-A(2)(a) before the Prescribed Authority on the ground that there was no reasonable cause for dispensing with his services. 4. The Prescribed Authority vide order dated 12.07.1990 allowed the complaint with consequential benefits and observed that since the Respondent was engaged during the period of his termination i.e. from 01.07.1985 to 08.07.1986 with Gangapur Co-operative Spinning Mills from where he got the remuneration, therefore, he will not be entitled to claim wages as consequential relief granted by the Prescribed Authority for the said period. 5. There is another facet of the case that prior to the engagement of the Respondent with the appellant, he was already working with Gangapur Co-operative Shipping Mills. There, his services came to be terminated. He challenged termination of his services before the Labour Court. The Labour Court passed the award in favour of the Respondent. As a consequence thereof, the 3 Respondent joined his service with his earlier employer from 01.07.1985 and continued till 08.07.1986. It is also seen from the record that the Respondent joined his service with his employer on 01.07.1985 and his services came to be terminated vide order dated 29.06.1985 just a day before. This has not been dealt with as to why the other day the Respondent joined there. Whether he sought the termination or was actually terminated. 6. Aggrieved of the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 12.07.1990, the appellant filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge which came be dismissed vide judgment dated 27.09.1996 upholding the order of the Prescribed Authority. 7. This appeal has been preferred on the ground that the Respondent is not an employee in terms of Section 2(5) read with Section 28-A of the Act of 1958 and that the Prescribed Authority, Ajmer has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint filed by the Respondent. 8. Since, this appeal can be disposed of on the question of jurisdiction, therefore, we leave it open as to whether the Respondent was a daily wager or an employee in terms of Section 2(5) read with Section 28-A of the Act of 1958. 4 9. So far as the question of jurisdiction to entertain the complaint presented by the Respondent before the Prescribed Authority is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent has candidly accepted this proposition of law that the Prescribed Authority at Ajmer was not having the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 10. His submission is that the Respondent has to challenge the action of the appellant which he wrongly challenged before the Prescribed Authority and the limitation will come in his way. He has further submitted that an observation be made so that the Respondent may come out from the limitation. The Court has no jurisdiction to pass any order to circumvent the law. This point he can raise before the Tribunal and meet in accordance with law, if any occasion arises. 11. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed for the reason that the Prescribed Authority at Ajmer has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the Respondent. Consequently, the orders of the Prescribed Authority as well as learned Single Judge are set aside. (K.S. Chaudhari),J. (R.C.Gandhi),J. Manoj. Item No.2.