An employer cannot terminate the employment of an employee who has been in employment for a period of not less than six months except for a reasonable cause and after giving such employee at least one month's prior notice or on paying him one month's wages in lieu of such notice.

1. - The petitioner is a registered Co-operative Society under the Rajasthan Shops & Commercial Establishments Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The said society was constituted with the object to promote housing facilities in the State of Rajasthan by providing loans to the needy persons. The petitioner is having its registered office at Jaipur and is represented before this court through is Managing Director.

2. The grievance of the petitioner as unfolded by this petition is that respondent No. 2 was appointed by the petitioner on purely temporary basis on daily wages as a typist at its registered office at Jaipur. He was issued appointment letter dated 16.11.84 at Jaipur while the said respondent was already in employment of the petitioner society since 13.11.84 at Jaipur. The short ground on which the services of the respondent were terminated was that as his services were no more required by the petitioner, the petitioner accordingly terminated the services on 29.6.85 vide Ex. 2 (Annexure 3) and alongwith the termination order the petitioner had handed over a cheque for Rs. 600/- to respondent No.2 in lieu of one month's notice in accordance with the provisions of section 28-A of the Act. The said cheque was encashed by the respondent.

3. Thereafter respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 28-A of the Act before the Prescribed Authority constituted under the Act at Ajmer whereby he challenged the termination order dated 29.6.95. At this stage it will be appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions of Section 28-A (1), (4) & (5) of the Act :

"28-A. Notice of dismissal or discharge by employer-

(1) No employer shall dismiss or discharge from his employment any employee who has been in such employment continuously for a period of not less than 6 months except for a reasonable cause and after giving such employee at least one month's prior notice or on paying him one month's wages in lieu of such notice :
Provided that such notice shall not be necessary where the services of such employee are dispensed with for such misconduct, as may be defined in the rules made by the State Government in this behalf and supported by satisfactory evidence recorded at an enquiry held for the purpose in the prescribed manner.

(4) While passing an order under sub-section (3), the prescribed authority shall have power to give relief to the employee by way of re-instatement or by awarding money compensation or by both.

(5) The decision of the prescribed authority under this section shall be final and binding both on the employer and the employee."

4. The prescribed authority at Ajmer vide its award (impugned) directed re-instatement of respondent No. 2 with back wages and also gave a positive finding in favour of respondent No. 2 by holding the termination order as illegal after recording this reasoned finding on the basis of evidence on record. It will be relevant to refer to the application moved by respondent No. 2 before the learned prescribed authority wherein the said applicant had specifically raised a preliminary objection that his services were terminated by the employer without assigning any reasonable cause and the said order of termination was passed simplicitor, since the Managing Director wanted to show favour to some other person who was appointed on 1.5.1985 as he belongs to his native village. The said colleague of respondent No.2 was also serving in the same office of the petitioner as a steno-typist in the same pay scale as a daily wager.

5. The impugned award of the prescribed authority, Ajmer (respondent No.1) has been challenged before this court on the ground interalia that the impugned order is completely illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction being contrary to the provisions of the Act, since the prescribed authority at Ajmer had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter by entertaining the complaint of respondent No. 2 on the ground that since the said respondent was appointed by the peti