AMARESHWAR SAHAY, J. - (1.) FROM the impugned order (Annexure -9) it appears that the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi disposed of six cases under the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, filed by the different employees of M/S Project Auto and Company, the respondent herein, and thereby, dismissed all the six cases, which were instituted on the basis of the complaint made by those employees under Section 26(2) of Bihar Shops and Establishment Act where the prayer was made for their reinstatement with back wages.
(2.) THE complaint filed by the present petitioner Binod Prasad under Section 26(2) of Bihar Shops and Establishment Act was registered as B.S. Case No. 1/1996 and the same has also been dismissed by the impugned order, which has been challenged in the present writ application. Therefore, in the present case this Court is concerned with the case of the petitioner Binod Prasad only. From the impugned order it appears that the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court formulated the following points for determination: (i) Whether the complaint petition of the petitioners is maintainable? (ii) Whether their termination is proper and justified? (iii) Whether petitioners are entitled to any relief?
(3.) THE Labour Court has held that the petitioner was an employee of the opposite party as defined under Section 2(4) of the B.S.E. Act. Therefore, the complaint petition filed by him was maintainable in the eye of the law. It was further held that there was nothing on the record to show that the petitioner was removed from the service, therefore, it was not a case of removal or discharge rather it was a case of abandonment of service. Lastly, it was held that the inordinate delay in filing the complaint was not explained and, therefore, the complaint filed by the petitioner was barred by limitation.;