Aftab Alam, J.

1. These two cases came to be heard before a Bench of three Judges on a reference made by me. Earlier while hearing these cases, sitting singly, I found it difficult to reconcile the views taken in two Division Bench decisions of this Court, one cited in support of the case of the petitioners and the other relied upon by the respondents. I accordingly, made an order of reference indicating the points of deviation in the two decisions.

2. The two petitioners, one in each of these two writ petitions were removed from service of the Bihar Co-operative Marketing Union, Ltd. (the Biscomaun, for short) by orders passed by its Administrator on the ground that their appointment was irregular and illegal. At the time of their removal they were given one months wages in lieu of one months notice (evidently to satisfy the requirements of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act) but admittedly no show cause notice or an opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners before passing the order of their removal from service.

3. The petitioners filed, separate writ petitions submitting that their removal from service, without giving them any notice to show cause or an opportunity of hearing was violative of the principles of natural justice. In support of the submission reliance was placed on an unreported Division Bench decision of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 8642 of 1988, Sri Biresh Tripathi V/s. State of Bihar and Ors.. In that case also an order of removal from service passed by the Administrator, Biscomaun on the same ground and under similar circumstances came under challenge. A Bench of this Court by judgment and order, dated December 15, 1989, allowed the application holding that the order of removal from service having been passed in violation of principles of natural justice was unsustainable in law.

4. From the side of the Biscomaun however, the impugned orders of, removal were sought to be defended by relying upon another Division Bench decision of this Court, in Bihar State Co. operative Marketing Union Ltd., Through its Administrator V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. 1993-I-LLJ-1177 (Pat-Dc). This was also a case of removal of an employee of the Biscomaun from service but it seems that the earlier (unreported) decision of the Court in Biresh Tripathi was brought to the notice of the Bench hearing this case. In the latter reported case, a similar order of removal from service was first challenged by the employee before the Authority under the Shops and Establishments, Act. The authority held that the order passed by the administrator was arbitrary because the concerned employee was not given any opportunity of hearing in the matter before the order of his removal was passed. It also found and held that the concerned employee was not given one months pay in lieu of notice and, therefore, the order of removal was also bad for non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of Sec. 26 of the Shops Act.

5. The order of the authority was challenged before this Court in a writ petition filed on behalf of the Biscomaun. In the reported decision it was held by a Bench of this Court that removal from service on the appointment was irregular and illegal was covered by the expression "for a reasonable cause" within the meaning of Sec. 26(1) of the Act and it, therefore, did not attract the principles of natural justice and the action of the Administrator in passing the order of removal from service without giving the concerned employee an opportunity of being heard in the matter could not; therefore be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary. In that case, however, the authority under the Shops Act had also field that the order of removal from service was made without making payment of one months wages in lieu of one months notice and, therefore, the termination of employment was further bad for non-compliance with the requirement of Sec. 26(1) of the Act. The Division Bench of this Court did not disturb that finding but remi