IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8708 of 2006 BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. V.N.Sahay, Adv. Mr. Arun Srivastav, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. D.N.Pandey, Adv. -------------- 3. 6.5.2008. Heard counsel for the parties. In the present writ application challenge is to the order dated 25.2.2006 (Annexure-1) passed by the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, an authority under the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, 1953 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). The proceeding under Section 26 of the Act was initiated at the behest of the petitioner, who was aggrieved by a dismissal order passed on 22.3.1997. He sought quashing of the said order of termination with relief of reinstatement with full back wages. The matter was adjudicated upon and after due deliberation and consideration of issues the impugned order in favour of the private respondent no.3 came to be passed. The Labour Court directed reinstatement of the employee with full back wages and consequential benefits. It is this order which is under challenge in the present writ application. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bihar State Electricity Board has a few objections and submissions to make on the validity of the order in question. According to him it was not open to the Labour Court to rely on the domestic 2 enquiry proceeding to come to the conclusions but it was duty bound under the Act specially Section 26(5) to consider the evidences and materials. According to him the same has not been done in the present case and, therefore, the order is vitiated. His second submission is with regard to misjoinder of parties since the appellate authority according to him who happens to be the Chairman of the Board was not impleaded as party in the matter, therefore, the order could not be passed. He also contends that the order passed in appeal as such has not been challenged in the proceeding before the Labour Court. The above contentions have been negated by the counsel appearing on behalf of the employee. He has drawn my attention to the various parts of the order in question to show that witnesses had been examined and materials were examined by the Labour Court and the findings have been recorded. Based on the same if the Labour Court on production of additional evidence on record which included the departmental enquiry also delved into the same and came to a conclusion that shall not make the order erroneous in any manner. He further contends that Electricity Board was made a party through the Chairman and merely because the appellate authority, who happens to be the Chairman also was not separately made a party it is not fatal to the maintenance of the case itself. It is not a case of non- joinder of the party going to the root of the matter. In so far as non-challenging the appellate order is concerned he submits that 3 the Labour Court has considered this aspect that an appeal was filed by the employee which was statutory in nature and since the appellate authority only affirmed the dismissal order, therefore, interference in the dismissal order by the Labour Court will also have a bearing on the appellate order, which is any way an affirmation order. The Court has perused the impugned order dated 25.2.2006 and comes to a considered opinion that submissions made on behalf of the Electricity Board are only too technical in nature to be upheld or should be form the basis for interference with the impugned order concerned. The Court has found evidences that the Labour Court has taken independent evidences on matters and has considered all these aspects and reached a conclusion. The other objections have been rightly dispelled in the submission made on behalf of the counsel for the employee. This Court does not gain any impression that there is any illegality in the order which requires interference in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If there is no patent illegality or gross violation of any statutory or legal provisions the Court shall not go out of the way to give indulgence to the employer merely on the asking. The writ application is dismissed. Pawan/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)