D.N. Patel, J. - (1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 19th September, 2006 passed in CWJC No. 2275 of 1998 (R), whereby the petition preferred by this respondent was allowed and thereby order passed by the Presiding Officer cum Authority u/s 26 of the Bihar shops and Establishment Act, Labour Court, Jamshedpur in BSE Case No. 10 of 1994 (under Section 26 of the B.S. & E Act ) has been quashed and set aside mainly on the ground that this appellant is not an Employee within the meaning of Section 2(4) of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, 1953 and he is a Worker within the meaning of Factories Act, 1948 under Section 2(l). Thus, as this appellant was covered by the definition of a worker under the Factories Act, 1948 he ceases to be an employee under the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, 1953 and application under Section 26 of the B.S. & E Act was not tenable at law and the Authority under section 26 of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, 1953, Labour Court, Jamshedpur had no power, jurisdiction and authority to entertain such an application preferred by this appellant. Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 2275 of 1998 (R) original respondents have preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. Submissions made on behalf of the appellant
(2.) It is contented by the counsel for the appellant (Original Respondent No.2) that looking to the documents on record before the Presiding Officer cum Authority under section 26 of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, Labour Court, Jamshedpur in B.S.E Case No. 10 of 1994, it appears that this appellant is an employee under the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, 1953 and he is not covered by the definition of the word 'Worker' under the Factories Act, 1948. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Labour Court, Jamshedpur, whereas the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the facts established before the Labour Court, Jamshedpur and wrongly allowed the writ petition preferred by the respondents. It is further submitted that duties attended to by this appellant is narrated in detail by the judgment delivered by the Labour Court, Jamshedpur and his work was neither connected with any manufacturing process nor his work was directly or indirectly connected with the subject of any manufacturing process and the work of this appellant was purely clerical in nature. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. Moreover, looking to the judgment delivered by the Labour Court, Jamshedpur, the same cannot be said to be a perverse finding. The counsel appearing for the appellant has also pointed out that initially this worker was working as an apprentice. Thereafter, he was appointed as an Electrician. He was further promoted as a Chargeman, then as a Junior Engineer, Assistant Engineer and Assistant Materials Officer. He was further promoted to the post of Senior Materials Officer and lastly promoted as an Assistant Manager and on 21st October, 1994 his resignation was taken by the respondents under duress and coercion and therefore, the appellant preferred an application under Section 26 of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, 1953 and the Labour Court at Jamshedpur has rightly observed in Issue No.1 that the appellant is covered by the definition of the word 'Employee' under Section 2(4) of the Bihar Shops & Establishment Act, 1953 looking to the nature of the work assigned to this appellant. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision reported in (2003) 6 SCC 675. Submissions made on behalf of the respondents
(3.) Counsel for the respondent submitted that looking to the definition of Worker given under Section 2(l) of the Factories Act, 1948, it appears that this appellant is covered by the said definition, especially looking to the words or in any other kind of work incidental to or connected with the manufacturing process . It is submitted by the counsel for the respondent that looking to the duties assigned to this appellant he is a worker under Section 2(l) of the Factories Act, 1948 as his nature of work was procurement and transportation of raw material. It is also submitted by counsel for the respondent that Ext. 9 is a concocted and fabricated document. It is further submitted that looking to the documents at 13(a) and 14(a) presented before the Labour Court, Jamshedpur, it appears that the document presented by this appellant before the Labour court, which are at Ext. 13 and 14 are manipulated documents. It is also submitted by the counsel for the respondents that documents presented by this appellant at Ext. 13 and 14 were not true and were incorrect letters of the respondents. In the original letters there was no signature of this appellant, but, the documents presented by the appellant, which were photocopies, were having signature of the appellant. It is also submitted by the counsel for the respondent that interim order was passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 2275 of 1998(R) on 13th November, 1998 to the effect that this respondent will pay arrears of wages from the date of the order passed by the Labour Court, Jamshedpur. This appellant has been paid by the respondents till the writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge i.e. 19th September, 2006, but the fact remains that this appellant has become an Advocate, as stated in the cross-objection filed by the respondents, with effect from 22nd December, 1998. In fact, relationship of Master and Servant came to an end when this appellant became an Advocate and he should not have continued receiving the last wage drawn by him from the respondents from December, 1998 till September, 2006. This fact has been suppressed by this appellant. Moreover, false and fabricated documents have been given before the Labour Court. Documents exhibited at Ext. 13 and 14 are not matching with the original documents presented by the respondents at Ext. 13(a) and 14(a) before the Labour Court and as these appellant is covered by the definition of word Worker within the meaning of the Factories Act, 1948, he was exonerated from the definition of the word Employee under 2(4) Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, 1953. The Labour Court, Jamshedpur has no jurisdiction to decide the application of the appellants under Section 26 of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, 1953. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition preferred by the respondent and therefore, this letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained by this court.;