The Validation Act, 1983, retrospectively amended Section 2(14) of the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958, to allow the State Government to appoint the prescribed authority by notification, thereby validating the appointment of the Authority that passed the impugned order.

1. - In this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner M/s Tourist Guide Service is challenging the order dated 31st October, 1977 passed by the Authority appointed under Section 28-A of the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishments Act. 1958 (hereinafter referred to 'as the Authority') allowing the application submitted by M.M. Sharma, Respondent No. 2 under Section 28-A of the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act').

2. The case of respondent No. 2, as set out in the said application filed under Section 28-A of the Act, on 28th December, 1975, was that he was employed with the petitioner since 1954 and on 3rd December, 1975 he came to know that his services have been terminated. In the said application respondent No.2 stated that no notice was given to him before his services were terminated and that no reason was disclosed with regard to the termination of his services and, therefore, the termination of his services was illegal and he should be reinstated with back wages. The petitioner opposed the said application of respondent No. 2. Certain preliminary objections were raised by the petitioner with regard to the maintainability of the said application. It was urged by the petitioner that respondent No. 2 does not fall within the definition of the term 'employee' as contained in the Act in as much as respondent No. 2 was employed as Manager and was exercising administrative and managerial powers and falls within the definition of 'employer' as contained in Section 2 of the Act and was, not entitled to file the application before the Authority. It was also urged by the petitioner that the establishment of the petitioner is covered by the exemption granted under Section 3 (d) of the Act. The Authority rejected the objection with regard to the establishment of the petitioner being covered by the provisions of the Act and held that the petitioner had not adduced any evidence to show that the establishment of the petitioner is not covered by the said provisions and that the petitioner had also not adduced any evidence that its establishment is exempted under Section 3(d) of the Act. The Authority also found that respondent No. 2 falls within the ambit of the definition of 'employee' as contained in Section 2 (5) of the Act and the mere fact that respondent No. 2 also falls within the ambit of the definition of 'employer' contained in Section 2 (6) of the Act does not mean that he is excluded from the definition of' employee. With regard to the application of respondent No. 2 being filed within limitation the Authority found that Smt. Sumitra Pandit, the proprietor of the establishment of the petitioner by her letter dated 17th April, 1971 (which was Ex. W-7 before the Authority) had directed respondent No. 2 to remain at his house and not to come to the office and that he would be informed about the work to be performed by him and that after the said letter respondent No. 2 did not attend the office and he used to do the work which he was directed to do from time to time and he was looking after the cases which were pending in the various Courts against the petitioner and was meeting the lawyers in connection with those cases and was also looking after the income-tax work of the petitioner and that in February, 1975, he had handled the American Express Group. The Authority also referred to the statement of Shri S.K. Saxena, Advocate, who was examined as a witness by respondent No. 2, who has stated that he was a counsel for the petitioner in a case and respondent No. 2 was coming to him in connection with that case upto July, 1975 and that in July, August, 1975 the said case was compromised. The Authority also observed that Smt. Pandit in her statement has admitted that she had written the letter (Ex. W-7) to respondent No. 2 and has also admitted that respondent No. 2 used to go to a lawyer upto April, 1974 in connection