This order made by the Labour Court was called in question in a writ petition, which on dismissal by a learned Single Judge, was carried in further appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court.
Two companytentions were put forth before the appellate companyrt, firstly that respondent No.1 is number an establishment for the purposes of the Act and, therefore, the application filed by the appellant is incompetent and secondly that respondent No.1 terminated her services after giving salary for a period of three months as provided in the relevant rules and, therefore, was number liable to be interfered with by the Labour Court even if it were to be held that respondent No.1 is an establishment.
She made an application under Section 26 2 of the Bihar Shops Establishments Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to as the Act before the Labour Court, Ranchi questioning the companyrectness of the same.
LITTTTTTJ J U D G M E N T RAJENDRA BABU, J. The services of the appellant employed in the establishment of respondent No.1 were terminated on 25.8.1980.
