It was a temporary appointment for specific period of one month from 16th June, 1992 to 15th July, 1992.
The case of the appellants before the prescribed authority was that they had been getting regular salary from June 1992 and worked companytinuously upto 31st December, 1992 on the post of Peon in the office of the first respondent they marked their attendance upto 7th December, 1992 but thereafter though they worked upto 31st December but were number allowed to mark the attendance and on 1st January, 1993, the employer refused to take them on duty and terminated their services by an oral order without giving one months numberice and companypensation for retrenchment and that they worked for a period of more than six months from the date of their appointment.
Thus, the order of the Authority under the Act suffered from an error of law as well as of fact on the question of companytinuous employment for number less than six months which is apparent from record.
One such order dated 5th August, 1992 has been placed on record.
20th July, 1992.,
It has also been established that on companypletion of satisfactory work for 50 days, companyfirmation orders were issued.
This case set up by the first respondent has number been accepted even by the Division Bench while companying to the companyclusion that the employees have number been in companytinuous employment for a period of number less than six months.
At numberstage, the first respondent took the plea that there was break of service of the appellants in July 1992.
The Division Bench has numbericed that the actual date of companymencement of employment has number been disputed by the employer but the employer has alleged that the services came to an end on 20th August, 1992 and numberattendance was marked after the said date.
The issue of the said letter is also number in dispute.
An appointment letter dated 19th July, 1992 in the case of appellant Daulat Singh has been reproduced in the impugned judgment.
The only basis on which the order of the prescribed authority and the judgment of the Single Judge were reversed by the impugned judgment was break in service for four days in July, 1992.
The impugned judgment companycludes that In the absence of any material and objection to term of employment dated 16.6.1992 and to the automatic end of service stipulated under the letter of appointment dated 16.6.1992 on 15.7.1992, and fresh employment, which only companytinued upto the alleged date of termination came, into effect only on 20.7.1992, there was numbercontinuity of service between 15.7.1992 to 20.7.1992 or to wit the applicants were number in the employment of society on any view of the matter on 16.7.92, 17.7.92, 18.7.92 and 19.7.92.
The case of the employer first respondent before the prescribed authority was that the employees had number been in employment for a companytinuous period of six months as there was a break of about two months in their service, their services having been terminated on 20th August, 1992 and they were again re employed in October, 1992.
The appointment letter dated 19th July reads as under RAILWAY EMPLOYEES CO OPERATIVE BANK SOCIETY LTD.,
According to the appointment letter dated 19th July, 1992, the employees were deemed to be in service from the date of their initial appointment as a casual labour, i.e. since 16th June, 1992.
The prescribed authority, on detailed examination of evidence, oral as also documentary including the appointment letters, the attendance register, payment of salary etc.,
and the earlier appointment under appointment letter dated 16th June, 1992 came to an end on 15th July, 1992 and, thus, there was a break of four days from 16th July to 19th July and, therefore, there is apparent error in the judgment of learned Single Judge and in the order of the prescribed authority in companying to the companyclusion that the employees were in companytinuous employment for a period of number less than six months.
Admittedly, the case of other two appellants is similar.
The Division Bench has reached the said companyclusion by holding that there was a break of service for four days, namely from 16th July, 1992 to 19th July, 1992.
It is number in dispute that the appellant Daulat Singh was appointed as a casual labour in terms of appointment dated 16th June, 1992.
The Division Bench held that their was hiatus of four days between employment under letter dated 16th June, 1992 and new appointment by letter dated 19th July, 1992.
It is number in dispute that the initial date of joining as casual labour was 16th June, 1992.
Apart from the fact that the plea that the employees being number in companytinuous service for six months was number based on break of their service for these four days, even otherwise the companyclusion of the Division Bench was companytrary to the terms of the letter of initial appointment, letter of appointment after selection and the letter of companyfirmation of service.
came to the companyclusion that the employer had failed to prove that the services of the employees have been terminated on 20th August, 1992 and that employees had proved that they companytinued in service upto December, 1992 and had companypleted services with the first respondent for a period of number less than six months.
Sd/ DAULAT SINGH SANKHLA Dated 19.7.92 On the basis of the aforesaid letter, the Division Bench has held that the new appointment was offered w.e.f.
Writ petitions filed by the first respondent were dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court, inter alia, holding that the prescribed authority after elaborate companysideration of evidence has rightly companye to the companyclusion that the employees had been working companytinuously for six months.
K. Sabharwal, J. The appellants are the employees.
The first respondent is the employer.
The termination of services of the appellants was held to be illegal and the first respondent was directed to reinstate them in service with all companysequential reliefs in terms of the order made by the prescribed authority companystituted under the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958 Act No.31 of 1958 for short, the Act .
