IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5283 of 2009 M/S CHITRABANI CINEMA,PURNEA . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 3/ 06/12/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State and for respondent No5 who has also appeared. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 24.7.2001 passed in Bihar Shop and Establishment Case No.1/97 by the Additional Labour Commissioner, Labour Court, Purnea by which the partnership firm and its partners have been directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,04,400/- as salary and to further quash the order dated 20.4.2005 passed in Case No.1/2001-02 rejecting the objection filed by the petitioner as the Certificate Debtor for cancelling the certificate as the entire dues are stated to have been paid. Learned counsel for the parties are not in controversy on the issue of fact that the alleged instruments by which the payment is stated to have been made to respondent No.5 were bearer instruments and not crossed or account payee instruments. In that background, the petitioner contends that he has made the payments which have been received by the respondent No.5 under his signature. Documents to that effect have been filed in the court below. - 2 - Learned counsel for respondent No.5 denies and disputes that any payments have been made and submits that the trial court has rightly directed the petitioner to produce the payments in the name of the respondent No.5 either by Demand Draft or account payee cheques. The controversy appears to be primarily if the payment alleged to have been made by the petitioner has been received by respondent No.5. This is a pure question of fact. Even if the payment was made by a bearer instrument, there has to be a discharge on the reverse of the cheque. There is no material on record, much less does the communication received from the Bank annexed to the counter affidavit contain any discussion with regard to the discharge given on the rear of the instrument and by whom. Simultaneously, whether the money receipts relied upon by the petitioner dated 15.10.2004, 13.10.2004 and 10.9.2004 have been issued by respondent No.5 along with an affidavit dated 19.10.2004 by respondent No.5 acknowledging payment is again a question of fact for examination and determination upon examination of evidence. The trial court is directed to call for a report from the Bank concerned as to who encashed the bearer instruments and whose signature was borne on the - 3 - reverse of the instrument. The Bank shall be obliged to furnish Xerox copies of the instrument on its face and reverse to the Certificate Court. Simultaneously, the Certificate Court shall proceed after due opportunities to both sides to adjudicate by a reasoned order of the grounds for its satisfaction why it was accepting the claims of the petitioner or respondent No.5, as the case may be, with regard to payment having been made or not been made after consideration of documentary and oral evidence whereafter the matter shall proceed in accordance with law. Till such time fresh determination is made the order dated 20.4.2005 directing the petitioner to re- deposit the amount in question by way of a Bank Draft of an account payee cheque shall remain in abeyance. The writ application stands disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)