BALIA, J.— This Special Appeal arises out of the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3611 of 1988 on 25.01.1991.

2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that Lake Palace Hotel and Motel (Pvt.) Ltd., Udaipur owns the Lake Palace Hotel situated at Udaipur. Respondent Ranjit Singh was employed as Steward-cum-Dining Supervisor in the services of the above named Hotel drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 926.85 when his services were terminated by order dated 15.08.1983. Aggrieved with the termination order, the respondent approached Prescribed Authority under the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, Udaipur by making a complaint in writing in the prescribed manner under section 28A of the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1958, hereinafter called as the Shop Act. A preliminary objection was raised before the Prescribed Authority about its jurisdiction to entertain the complaint on behalf of respondent Ranjit Singh on the ground that the term "employee" under section 2 (5) of the Shop Act has the same meaning as the term"workman" as defined under section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Central Act and any employee who does not fall within the definition of workman under the Central Act is not entitled to invoke provisions of the Shop Act also. It was contended that since respondent Ranjit Singh working in supervisory post and drawing salary exceeding Rs. 500/-, he was not a workman within the meaning of Central Act, he does not come within the purview of the term "employee" also under the Shop Act. Therefore, the Prescribed Authority under the Shop Act has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. This objection found favour with the Prescribed Authority and the complaint was dismissed by the Prescribed Authority on 30.3.1988. The order of the Prescribed Authority was challenged by way of above mentioned writ petition. The learned Single Judge of this Court vide his order under appeal set aside the order of the Prescribed Authority and directed the Authority to proceed with the matter and decide the complaint in accordance with law. Hence this appeal.

3. It is contended by Mr. C.N. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the definition of employee under section 2 (5) of the Shop Act does not include any employee who does not fall within the definition of workman as defined in section 2 (s) of the Central Act. If for any reason, the term employee under the Shop Act is interpreted to include even those employees who do not fall within the definition of the workman under the Central Act then to that extent, the provisions of the Shop Act, which is an Act of State Legislation, are repugnant to the provisions of the Central Act an Act of Parliament, therefore, the provisions of State Legislation must give way to the Central Legislation in view of the provisions of Article 254 of the Constitution of India.

4. Firstly, it was contended by Mr. C.N. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants that the Shop Act is only supplemental to the Central Act and does not override the provisions of the aforesaid Central Act. According to him, the Shop Act provides merely another forum as an alternative to one provided under the Central Act for settling the industrial disputes relating to dismissal or discharge from employment of any employee. As the Central as well as the Shop Act occupy the same field of the legislation, the subject over which the two Acts operate must necessarily be identical. Therefore, it is submitted that only those persons who can properly come within the definition of workman under the Central Act can be made subject of operation of the Shop Act providing forum for redressal of grievances against dismissal or discharge. Viewed from this point of view the term employee used in the Shop Act should be read as being limited to the scope of the term workman as defined under section 2 (s) of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document