AMARESHWAR SAHAY, J. - (1.) THE petitioner M/s. Surya Roshni Limited, by filing this Writ Application, has challenged the order contained in Annexure -10 to the Writ Application dated 21.12.1999 in B.S. Case No. 7/98 by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder, the Labour Court allowed the application under Section 26(2) of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, 1953 read with Rule 21 of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Rules, 1955 filed by the respondent No. 2 Atanu Sengupta directing his reinstatement in service with full back wages and consequential benefits.
(2.) A complaint under Section 26(2) of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as Act) was filed by the respondent No. 2 Atanu Sengupta(hereinafter referred to as the Complainant) before the Labour Court stating therein as follows: (a) He was initially appointed as Deputy Manager (Technical Marketing) on 03.02.1996 by M/s. Surya Roshni Limited on a fixed salary of Rs. 7,230/ - per month. The Complainant joined at the place of posting at Bhubneshwar Sales Office under the administrative control of the Sales Officer. From Bhubneshwar, he was transferred to Calcutta Sales Office and he joined there at Calcutta. The service of the Complainant was confirmed on 16.10.1996. After granting increment, his salary was fixed at Rs. 8,030/ - per month with effect from 01.01.1997 apart from other allowances. (b) From Calcutta, he was transferred to Ranchi Sales Office and thereby, he joined Ranchi Sales Office on 21.04.1997. He was made responsible for Technical Marketing Sales for the entire Ranchi and Patna Sales territory and his Headquarters was fixed at Ranchi. His nature of job was to promote sales of the produce of the Company. He was an employee within the meaning of Section 2(4) of the Act and M/s. Surya Roshni Limited was the employer within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the said Act. (c) The Complainant was not acting in any supervisory of managerial position rather, he was posted under the administrative control of the Senior Area Manager, Ranchi Sales Office who was his reporting officer. (d) All of a sudden, the complainant received a letter dated 27.01.1998 on 31.01.1998 whereby, his services were terminated with effect from 31.01.1998 on the ground that his services were not found satisfactory and his performance during the tenure of the service was poor. (e) Prior to issuance of such letter, he was never served with any chargesheet. According to the Complainant, since the letter of termination was stigmatic and as such, it was incumbent upon his employer to serve a formal chargesheet and to hold domestic enquiry but the same was not done and therefore the Complainant challenged the order of termination. He further stated that no compensation as prescribed in proviso 1 or proviso 2 to Section 26 of the Act was made before dispensing with his services. The writ petitioner M/s. Surya Roshni Limited and his officers who were arrayed as opposite party in the said complaint petition filed by the Complainant, filed their show -cause contesting the claim of the Complainant on the grounds: that the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, 1953 was not applicable because the Complainant was not an employee as envisaged within the meaning of Section 2(4) of the Act rather, the Complainant fall in the category of the employer within the definition of Section 2(5) of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act and therefore, the Complaint under Section 26 of the Act filed by the Complainant was not maintainable.
(3.) IN support of the respective claims, both the parties led their evidences both oral and documentary and thereafter, by the impugned order, the Labour Court passed the impugned order in favour of the Complainant employee asking the employer to reinstate the Complainant in service with full back wages which is under challenge in this writ application.;