THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIHAR STATE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANR. Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Managing Director, Bihar State Tourism Development Corporation Limited as well as the Corporation are petitioners before this Court challenging the order dated 9.5.2006 passed by the Labour Court under the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, 1953, Patna. Respondent No. 2 Kaushal Kishore Singh moved the Labour Court under Section 26(2) of the Bihar Shops & Establishment Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). He assailed the order of termination dated 29.8.1995 contained in Annexure-14. His contention was that the order of termination was per se illegal and in conflict with the law as laid down under Section 26(1) of the Act. He also wanted his reinstatement with full back wages as well as other consequential benefits.

(2.) Submission of the learned counsel representing the Corporation is that the establishment of the Corporation does not come within the ambit of the Act because the object and purpose behind setting up of the Corporation as well as various establishments including Hotel Gautam Vihar, Rajgir was to promote tourism and is not a commercial venture of the kind which could be understood in the common parlance of the shop and establishment. The other contention is that even if the first objection against the order is overlooked, the Labour Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in matter of grant of relief to the private respondent in the sense that he has ended with an exalted status which he did not have or had at the time of his termination or removal.

(3.) Admitted position is that the private respondent was engaged on daily wage basis without following any procedure as such by the erstwhile Managing Director and was working at Hotel Gautam Vihar located at Rajgir as a receptionist. All kinds of accusations and allegations came to be levelled against him from time to time for which action was taken, if not caution was advised to him but it did not make any difference which compelled the authorities to pass an order contained in Annexure-14. In such a situation it is his stand whether the Tribunal/Labour Court could have permitted reinstatement as well as payment of back wages with all consequential benefits to the private respondent.