Lala Lajpat Rai Bal Mandir and anr. (ii) Vs. Labour Court and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- motor vehicles act, 1988 [c.a. no. 59/1988]section 173(1) proviso; [d. biswas, amitava roy & i.a.ansari, jj] appeal without statutory deposit but within limitation/or extended period of limitation maintainability - held, if the provision of a statute speaks of entertainment of appeal, it denotes that the appeal cannot be admitted to consideration unless other requirements are complied with. the provision of sub-section (1) of section 173 permits filing of an appeal against an award within 90 days with a rider in the first proviso that such appeal filed cannot be entertained unless the statutory deposit is made. the period of limitation is applicable only to the filing of the appeal and not to the deposit to be made. it, therefore, appears that an appeal filed under section 173 cannot..........directing his reinstatement in service is hereby quashed as the petition under section 26 of the shop and establishment act was not applicable in the case of educationalinstitution.

Judgment:
ORDER

Amareshwar Sahay, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner, Lala Lajpat Rai Bal Mandir, which is an educational institution, has challenged the order as contained in Annexure 8 to the writ application passed by the Labour Court, Ranchi in B.S. Case No. 8 of 1997, registered on the basis of the complaint petition under Section 2.6 of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, for quashing of the order of termination and for re-instatement of the complainant/ respondent No. 2, who is the Principal of the said school, with monetary compensation.

2. The Presiding Officer Labour Court by his impugned order dated 11.9.1997, has allowed the application filed by the respondent No. 2 herein by setting aside his termination of service and directed the opposite party/petitioner to re-instate the applicant/respondent and to pay full back wages with consequential benefits.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this case is fully covered by the Judgment in the case of Ruth Soren v. Managing Committee, East ISSDA and Ors., reported in 2001 (1) Jhr CR 1 (SC), wherein it has specifically been held that the educational institution imparting education does not carry on a business, tread or profession hence it is not 'establishment' within the managing of Bihar Shops and Establishment Act and therefore, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Managing Committee. Relying on the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court this Court also in the case of G. and H. High School and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Anr., reported in 2001 (1) Jhr CR 283, has held that the educational institution do not fall under the definition of the establishment hence petition under Section 26 of the said Act is not maintainable against such institution.

4. Considering the above two decisions this application is allowed and the order as contained in Annexure 8 to the writ application passed by the Labour Court, Ranchi setting aside the termination of the respondent No. 2 and directing his reinstatement in service is hereby quashed as the petition under Section 26 of the Shop and Establishment Act was not applicable in the case of educationalinstitution.