A charitable trust, which does not engage in any commercial activities, cannot be considered a 'shop' or a 'commercial establishment' under the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1958. Therefore, the Authority appointed under the Act has no jurisdiction to entertain disputes relating to such a trust.

B.R. Arora, J.-Since the aforesaid two writ petitions raise a common question of law and the facts of both these writ petitions are almost the same excepting the name of the respondent No. 3 and the duration of their service period, as such these writ petitions are decided by this common judgment by dealing with the facts contained in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1796 of 1991.

2. Thepetitioners, by this writ petitions, have challenged the order dated January 1, 1991, passed by the Authority appointed under the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, Bikancr Region, Bikaner, by which the learned Authority allowed the applications filed by the non-petitioners Ram Chandra Choudhary and Bhanwar Lal and quashed the order dated August 21, 1986, passed by petitioner M/s. Rajmata Badheliji Surdanshan Kumariji of Bikaner Trust, Junagarh, Bikaner (for short, ‘the Trust’), terminating the services of the applicants Ram Chandra Choudhary and Bhanwar Lal and directing the non-applicant (petitioner) to reinstate them in service with all the back wages and the benefit of continuity of service.

3. Respondents Ram Chandra Choudhary and Bhanwar Lal filed an application under Section 28-A of the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1958 (for short, ‘the Act’) before the Authority appointed under the Act. It was averred in the application that the applicants were appointed by the Secretary of the petitioner Trust as Chowkidars on a monthly salary of Rs. 200/-in the month of September, 1984, and their work was satisfactory but the non-applicant (the petitioner in these writ petitions) without assigning any reasons, terminated their services by the verbal order dated August 21, 1986. Before terminating the services of the applicants Ram Chandra Choudhary and Bhanwar Lal, neither one month’s notice, as required under the law, was given to them, nor one month’s pay in lieu of the notice was paid to them nor were the applicants served with any charge-sheet. As the applicants have served the non-applicant for more than six months, the termination of their services was in contravention of the mandatory provisions of the law and, therefore, they are entitled for reinstatement in service: along with all the back wages. The Trust filed reply to those applications. It was stated in the reply that the Trust does not fall within the definition of the words ‘shop’ or the “commercial establishment’ and, therefore, no application under Section 28A of the Act can be filed before the Authority appointed under the Act and, therefore, the Authority has no jurisdiction to entertain those applications. It was also stated in the reply that the applicants were appointed on part-time basis to make a round of the Trust property so that somebody may not trespass over the land of the Trust and may not raise any unauthorised construction over the property of the Trust. The applicants worked for 1 1/2 to 2 hours daily and their term of appointments came to an end on August 21, 1986, and after that period, on account of non-availability of the work with the Trust, their services were terminated and no other person has been appointed on the posts of Chowkidar thereafter. It was also contended that the Trust is a Public Charitable Trust and looking to its object, for which it was established, the provisions of the Act are not applicable to it.

4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Trust was established for charitable purposes and not for carrying out any trade, business or profession and, therefore, the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the Trust and the learned Authority committed an error in entertaining the applications filed by the applicants and quashing the order of termination of their services. Learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that the Trust was engaged in the commercial activities as it was selling the land of the Trust by making division of the property in the