Lalit Mohan Sharma, J.

1. This writ application by the petitioner, Rajeshwar Prasad Jaiswal, who was the managing partner of a medical concern, which has since 1-1-1973 been closed down, is directed against the order passed under the provisions of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Labour Court, Patna, respondent No. 5, as contained in Annexure 5 to the writ application affirmed on appeal by the respondent No. 6 by the order contained in Annexure 6 to the writ application.

2. The said concern was a co-partnership business functioning in the name of Popular Jain Pharmaceutical Distributors in the town of Patna and was the authorised distributor for the whole of the State of Bihar for some pharmaceutical concerns and was getting commission. The respondents 1 to 4, besides others, were employed by the petitioner on such rates of pay and with effect from the dates mentioned in paragraph 5 of the writ application. These are the admitted facts in the case. According to further case of the petitioner, the medical concerns which were supplying medicines for distribution to the petitioner cut down the supply of medicines practically and some of them cut the supply altogether resulting in the loss of business and volume of work and as a result the partnership firm closed down with effect from 1-1-1973. The respondents 1 to 4 as also other employees had full knowledge of the developments, but for abundant precaution, the situation was brought to their notice formally also. The respondents 1 to 4 filed an application under Section 28 of the Act on 5-2-1973 against the present petitioner making several claims including those on the basis of yearly increments and compensation for termination of service. The learned Counsel appearing for parties stated that as in this writ application the questions which the parties are raising before this court are only in respect of the aforesaid two items it is not necessary to state any facts relating to the other claims which have been dealt with by the respondents 5 and 6. They have, in their arguments, referred only to the questions whether the respondents 1 to 4 are entitled to any compensation by way of increments in their pay and to compensation for termination of their service. As a matter of fact, the appeal before the respondent No. 6 in respect of the other claims was not pressed.

3. The respondents 1 to 4 claimed that each of them was entitled to an yearly increment of Rs. 10/- which was not paid by the Management since 1969. The petitioner denied the claim. The respondent No. 5 gave its finding in favour of the employees which was affirmed on appeal. On the other point the respondent No. 5 held that the employees were entitled to compensation under the second proviso to the Section 26(1) of the Act. The respondent No. 6 on appeal confirmed this finding also.

4. Mr. Anirudh Prasad Verma, appearing for the petitioner, raised the following two points in support of this application:

(i) The claim on the basis of yearly increment so far it related to a period more than six months prior to the filing of the application under Section 28 of the Act was barred by limitation under Rule 22(1) of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Rules, 1955(hereinafter referred to as the Rules), and

(ii) The respondents 1 to 4 were not entitled to compensation under Section 26(1) second proviso of the Act as it was a case of bona fide closure of the business.

5. The first argument addressed by Mr. Verma does not appear fit to be entertained. The proviso to Rule 22(1) of the Rules, which is in the following words, authorises the authority to condone the delay in filing the application, if the application can show that there was sufficient cause for the delay:

Provided that an application may be admitted after the period of six months if the applicant satisfies the authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period.

The qu