JUGAL KISHORE BHADANI Vs. LABOUR COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India have been made by one Jugal Kishore Bhadani, proprietor of Messrs Ramlal Jugal Kishore of Purani-Godown in the town of Gaya, and arise out of two orders of the Labour Commissioner of Bihar, respondent No. 1, one dated 21-1-1956, passed in favour of Basudev Prasad, respondent No. 4 in M. J. C. No. 473 of 1956, and the other dated 27-1-1956, passed in favour of Chhotan Prasad Singh, respondent No. 4 in M. J. C. No. 474 of 1956, under Section 26 (2) of the .Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1953 (Bihar Act VIII of 1954), hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, read with Rule 21 of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Rules, 1955, framed under Section 40 of the Act, hereinafter to be referred to as the rules.

(2.) The short facts are these: The above named Basudeo Prasad and Chhotan Prasad Singh were employees in the firm of the petitioner and had served therein for several years. On 15-3-1955, Chhotan Prasad Singh was discharged from his employment and on 19-3-1955, Basudeo Prasad was discharged from the service. They thereafter preferred appeals before the Labour Commissioner, Bihar, under Section 26 (2) of the Act, and the Labour Commissioner held that the discharge orders of both these persons were illegal, and the orders of discharge were, therefore, set aside. The reasons for taking the above view were that no notice was served on the two employees and they were not guilty of any misconduct as alleged by the employer. The Labour Commissioner, however, considered that the relationship between the employer and the employees had so deteriorated that no useful purpose would be served if they are reinstated. He, therefore, instead of passing an order for reinstatement, made an order that the employer should pay to each of them Rs. 500 as compensation. Thereafter, in the case of Basudeo Prasad, respondent No. 3, S.A. Rahman, Magistrate, first class, Gaya, being directed by respondent No. 2, the District Magistrate, Gaya, realised the amount of Rs. 500 from the petitioner by issue of a distress warrant, but the payment of the money to the employee has been stayed, and in the case of Chhotan Prasad Singh, the same Magistrate, as directed by the District Magistrate, Gaya, took steps to realise the amount from the petitioner by issue of a distress warrant. In these circumstances, the proprietor, Sri Jugal Kishore Bhadani, made the two applications in this Court.

(3.) Cause has been shown by the above two employees by filing counter-affidavits in both the cases and they have contested the applications. A contest is also made by the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 to 3.