Thereupon the appellant filed another writ petition in the High Court out of which the present appeal has arisen.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated August 7, 1963 of the Patna High Court in Misc.
Habibur Rahman was dis ,charged on May 5, 1960 and one months pay in lieu of numberice was ,offered to him.
Abdul Rahim was dismissed on April 22, 1960.
The labour companyrt heard the appellant on March 27, 1961 and decided on April 4, 1961 to companydone the delay and confirm the ex parte order already passed.
In this petition the order dated April 4, 1961 was attacked on various grounds.
Niren De, Additional Solicitor General, A. N. Sinha and D. Gupta, for the appellants.
Thereafter in March 1961 the appellant moved the labour companyrt for recalling the ex parts order of companydonation.
These two employees made applications under s. 26 of the Act in December 1960 before the labour companyrt.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The question arises in this way.
226 of the Constitution for quashing the order of the labour companyrt companydoning the delay on the ground that it had been passed without hearing the appellant.
The appellant is carrying on business in petroleum products in the Patna district.
These applications were obviously barred by time.
Case No.343 of 1961.
1006 of 1964.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Wanchoo, J. The main question raised in this appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Patna High Court is .the companystitutionality of s. 26 of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, No.
S. Bindra and R. N. Sachthey, for respondent No.
Consequently the appellant moved the High Court at Patna under Art.
8 of 1954, hereinafter referred to as the Act .
Habibur Rahman was serving as a watchman and Abdul Rahim as a driver in the permanent employ of the appellant at the Dinapore depot.
They were charged with gross misconduct and an enquiry was held ,by the appellant in that companynection.
