- (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE appellant, employer is aggrieved against the order dated 16th April, 2009, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition No., W.P. (L) No. 856 of 2007, challenging the order passed by the Labour Court, Jamshedpur in B.S. Case No. 5 of 1995, dated 29th November, 2006, has been dismissed. The facts, in brief, are that the Respondent -writ petitioner claimed that he is a workman under the definition given under sub -section 2 of Section 4 of the Bihar Shops & Establishment Act, 1953 (in short 'Act') and his services has been terminated illegally. The petitioner, therefore, challenged the order of termination, dated 15th February, 1995. After evidence, the Labour Court, Jamshedpur, allowed the claim of the respondent -claimant, after rejecting the appellant's plea that the respondent was holding the managerial post and also after rejecting the appellant's plea that the petitioner was paid due compensation before termination of service. The Labour Court directed the appellant to reinstate the writ petitioner - respondent in service and awarded 25 per cent back wages.
(3.) THE appellant's contention before the learned Single Judge was that the respondent was not the workman in the definition of sub - section 2 of Section 4 of the Act of 1953 as he was discharging the function and the duties of the Manager and was holding the position no. 2 in the organization at Jamshedpur. Learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the statement of the respondent -complainant and pointed out that the respondent -complainant, in his statement, admitted that at Jamshedpur office, the senior most officers were the Engineers and amongst the Engineers, the respondent was the senior most. He admitted that he had to issue certificates to the dealers of the appellant and he was authorized not only to operate the Bank account but he himself, by his own signature, opened the Bank account. It is also submitted that the appellant admitted that there were 17 employees in the organization at Jamshedpur and as per sub -section 2 of Section 4 read with serial No. 5 to Schedule, the two senior most persons of the appellant could not have been included in the definition of the workman under the Act of 1953.;