IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.967 of 2008 In (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 8708/2006) Bihar State Electricity Board, through its Chairman Vidyut Bhawan Bailey Road, Patna-1 ….. Appellant/Petitioner Versus 01. State Of Bihar, through the Secretary Labour and Employment, New Secretariat, Patna-1 02. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Labour Building, Bailey Road, Patna 03. Suresh Prasad Singh, S/o Nand Lal Singh, resident of Sobha Bigha, P.O., P.S. & District- Nalanda ….. Respondents/Respondents For the Petitioner:- Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Arun Srivastava, Advocate For the Private Respondents:- Mr. D.N. Pandey, Advocate & Mr. Sidharth Shankar Pandey, Adv. ---------------------------------- 09. 01.08.2011 The present L.P.A. is filed against the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8708 of 2006 dated 06.05.2008, which was filed by the appellant Bihar State Electricity Board, questioning Annexure-1, the award passed by the Labour Court dated 25.2.2006. The respondents has agitated his rights against the order of termination before the Labour Court under the Bihar Shop and Establishment Act, 1953 purported to be under Section 176 of the Act. The Labour Court having gone into the merits of the case has set aside the dismissal order and directed for reinstatement of the respondent with full back wages and other consequential benefits. 2 It was contended before the learned Single Judge that the award was challenged in the writ petition on the ground that the Labour Court ought not have relied on the enquiry proceedings to come to a conclusion and secondly there was mis- joinder of the parties. It has been observed by the learned Single Judge that the mis-joinder of the parties was to the effect that the appellant, who was Chairman of the Board was not impleaded as party. The said contention was negatived by the respondents by bringing to the notice of the learned single Judge to the effect that many witnesses have been examined by the Labour Court and after perusing the evidence findings have been recorded. It is also been contended that a petition was also filed for additional evidence. Contention of the appellate authority with regard to not making the party was negatived by the Labour Court as the Chairman of the Board has been made as a party. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the Electricity Board that the respondent is not entitled for the back wages. But, however in view of the fact that the Labour Court has considered the evidence available on record and 3 reaches at a conclusion that the respondents should be reinstated with all consequential benefits, we are of the opinion that such order of dismissal is set aside and it is presumed that he is entitled for all back wages. Accordingly as the Labour Court has passed award after considering the evidence available on record, we do not intend to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Under the aforesaid circumstances as the learned Single Judge was not agreed with the contention which are raised as stated above, we are also of the opinion that the objection raised by the appellant is not tenable. Accordingly this L.P.A. stands dismissed. P.K. (T. Meena Kumari, J.) (Vikash Jain, J.)