A.K. Khan vs State of Bihar and Others

The writ petitioner-appellant, A.K. Khan filed an application u/s 26(2) of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, 1953 against the order of termination with further prayer for reinstatement with monetary compensation. It was registered as B.S. Case No. 9 of 1996. The learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi vide order dated 20th October, 1997 while held that the application was not maintainable, dismissed the complaint petition.

The order aforesaid was affirmed by learned single Judge vide impugned order dated 17th February, 2002 in CWJC No. 3184 of 1998(R).

Counsel for the respondents submitted that the application u/s 26(2) of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, 1953 was preferred by the appellant against an action taken by the respondent-Guru Nanak School, Ranchi. According to him, the aforesaid application was not maintainable under the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, 1953.

The issue whether the word "establishment" covers educational institution imparting education or not stands decided by the decision of the Supreme Court in Ruth Soren v. Managing Committee, East, ISSDA, reported in 2001 (1) JCR 1 (SC). In the said case, the Supreme Court taking into consideration the provision of Section 26(2) of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, 1953 held that the educational institution imparting education does not carry on business, trade or profession hence it is not "establishment". Labour Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Managing Committee.

The counsel for the appellant submitted that as the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ruth Soren, (supra) is prospective, should be applicable in the cases filed after 30th November, 2000 the day the Supreme Court delivered the judgment. However, such submission is not applicable in the present case as the Labour Court rejected the case on the ground of non-maintainability which has also been affirmed by the learned single Judge.

In the circumstances, as the application filed by the appellant before the labour court, Ranchi was not maintainable, observation, if any, made by learned Presiding Officer, Ranchi vide order dated 20th October, 1997 will not affect the appellant, if he prefers to move before a court of competent jurisdiction for such relief.

The appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid observations. However, there shall be no order as to cost.