AMARESHWAR SAHAY,J. - (1.) THE Order dated 26.06.1992, contained in Annexure - 4 to the Writ Application, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro in B.S.E. Case No. 1 of 1991 has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ application whereby, the learned Labour Court dismissed the Complaint Petition filed by the petitioner purported to be under Section 26(2) of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1953 holding that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the Complainant -Petitioner in view of the fact that the provisions of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1953 would not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case and it was observed that the Complainant may raise an industrial dispute and get the same referred under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication.
(2.) MR . Kalyan Roy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that against the filing of the Complaint under Section 26(2) of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1953 by the petitioner, the Respondent No. 2 - Management, challenged the same by filing a Writ Application before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2074 of 1991 (R) and this Court, by order dated 30.09.1991 (Annexure - 3) passed the following order: At this stage, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition in which the jurisdiction of Respondent No. 3 to entertain the complaint filed by Respondent No. 2 under Shops Act has been challenged. The petitioner may, in the event the final order of Respondent No. 3 goes against them, challenge the order by taking all objections that may be available to them. The application is dismissed. Mr. Roy submitted that in view of the above mentioned order, in fact the Labour Court was directed to decide all the points raised by the parties and therefore, it could not have dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 26(2) of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1953 on a preliminary issue of jurisdiction. In fact, the Labour Court ought to have decided the entire issue raised before it.
(3.) BY citing a decision in the case of D.P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration and Ors. reported in : (1983)IILLJ425SC , Mr. Roy submitted that the Supreme Court, while dealing with case under Section 10(1)(c) and Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, has held that the Tribunal should decided all the issues raised before it whether preliminary or otherwise at the same time.;