NAGENDRA PRASAD SINGH, J.

1. This writ application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing an award dt. 19-9-1980 of the Labour Court, Jamshedpur. A copy of the said award is Annexure-6 to the writ application.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Security Officer by M/s Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred to as the Company), in June, 1967. In the night between 25/26th Mar, 1970 the petitioner was posted at the main-gate on C shift. A truck containing articles of the Company worth Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lakh) was allowed to pass the gate. On 5-4-1970 a charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his explanation and, after a domestic enquiry, the petitioner was dismissed with effect from 4-8-1970. Later, the order of dismissal was converted into an order of discharge with effect from 4-8-1970.

3. On 2-5-1972, a complaint under Section 26 of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act along with an application for condonation of delay was received by the Labour Court, an authority constituted under the said Act, and a case was registered. In that case, the Company appeared and opposed the prayer of the petitioner for an order of reinstatement with back wages. The Labour Court, after hearing both the parties, by its order dt. 6-5-1975, case to the following conclusions :

1. The petitioner was an employee under the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, as such the application was maintainable.

2. There was no evidence that this petitioner had any hand in the removal of materials, so as to be held guilty of a prescribed misconduct.

3. According to the standing order, no misconduct was proved and as such the statutory one months notice was necessary before dismissal/discharge.

4. The order of discharge passed against the petitioner was illegal and unjustified.

5. The petitioner, however, was not entitled to reinstatement in the facts and circumstances of the case but was only entitled to compensation.

Having recorded the aforesaid findings, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, purported to consider the question as to whether the delay in filing the complaint under S. 26 of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, hereinafter referred to as the Shops and Establishments Act should be condoned. He came to the conclusion that as no sufficient cause had been made out for condonation of the delay in filing such a complaint, the complaint filed on behalf of the petitioner was barred by limitation. A copy of the said order dt. 6-5-1975 is Annexure-1 to the writ application.

4. On 20-5-1976, the appropriate Government in exercise of the powers conferred on it by S. 10(l)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act made a reference to the same Labour Court for adjudication of the questions as to whether the dismissal of the petitioner by the Company was proper and justified and, if not justified, then whether the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement or any other relief?

5. The Company filed a writ application before this Court challenging the aforesaid reference made by the appropriate Government which was numbered as C. W. J. C. No. 182 of 1976(R). In the said writ application, it was urged on behalf of the Company that the complaint filed on behalf of the petitioner having been dismissed under the provisions of the Shops and Establishments Act, a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act was incompetent. This Court in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation v. C. D. Singh (1972-2 Lab LJ 395) : (1972 Lab IC 808) held that there was no bar in making a reference by the appropriate Government even in cases where the workman concerned has approached the authority under the Shops & Establishments Act. The writ application was accordingly dismissed on 14th of July, 1977. A copy of the said order is Annexure-3 to the writ application.

6. When the reference case was taken up by the Labour Court, an application was filed on beh