RANCHI, India, June 4 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on April 4:

1. Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the judgment dated 21.01.2019 (Annexure-6) passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi in Bihar Shops & Establishment Case No. 10 of 2016 whereby the petition filed by the original petitioner under section 26 of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, 1953, has been dismissed.

3. The original petitioner had expired during the pendency of this writ petition and consequently, he has been substituted by his wife and daughters.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the original petitioner namely, Amar Kumar claimed to be an employee under the respondent-company within the meaning of Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1953'). She submits that the petitioner was offered the post of Senior Executive (Level -5) by virtue of letter dated 15.05.2014 followed by letter of appointment dated 22.05.2014 in Jharkhand having office at Ranchi on gross salary of Rs. 41,250/- per month. She submits that the main job of the original petitioner was to acquire land throughout the State of Jharkhand as per the requirement of clients/service providers and to do all formalities with regard to lease agreement and the original petitioner was an employee. She further submits that the original petitioner continued to perform his work till June, 2016 and received monthly salary regularly till May, 2016. However, he was communicated the letter of termination dated 27.06.2015 and as per the case of the petitioner, the said termination letter is back dated. She submits that ultimately, the case was filed in the year 2016 under the aforesaid Act of 1953 challenging the order of termination.

5. It was the specific case of the original petitioner that the order of termination was stigmatic and was issued without following the mandate of law which has affected the future course of employment and no proceeding was drawn prior to the order of termination.

6. The notices were issued to the respondents herein by the learned court and as many as 5 issues were framed including the issue as to whether the complainant is an employee within the meaning of section 2(4) of the Act of 1953. The legality and validity of termination from service of the complainant was also one of the issues on merits. The issues framed by the learned Labour Court are as under:

"(i) Whether the memorandum of complainant is maintainable?

(ii) Whether complainant is an employee within the meaning of Section 2(4) of the Act?

(iii) Whether opposite party is an establishment within the meaning of Section 2(6) of the Act?

(iv) Whether order of termination from service of the complainant is valid, justified and in conformity with the provisions of Section 26 of the Act?

(v) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?"

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties led both oral and documentary evidences on all the issues. However, the learned Labour Court, Ranchi has decided only issue nos. (i) and (ii) by holding that the original petitioner was not an employee within the meaning of the aforesaid act of 1953 and was holding a managerial post. Ultimately, the learned Labour Court held that the petition itself was not maintainable.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=%2FE3WiyNUWFIaR1oBGE62Wkp17%2FQDHknfIuUTB8r1Ly25T19rkMy8hibYyIBoDFXU&caseno=WPC/2256/2019&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010151932019&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.