Judgment 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of annexure 1. Annexuri 1 contais an order passed by the presiding Officer, Labour Court, Muzaffarpur, under section 26 (5)of the Bihar Shops and Ertablishment Act, 1953 ( Bihar Act 8 of 1954 ) ( hereinafter referred to as the Act. ) 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner attacks the validity of the impugned order on the ground that the Labour Court bad no jurisdictiction to entertain the complaint under section 26 (2)of the Act. In this connection, he refers to the provisions of the bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 ( hereinaftet referred to ". as the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act ") and the rules made there-under. Under section 66 of the Bihar Co-operative societies Act, the Bihar Co-operaties Rules 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ) have been framed, A reference was made to rule 33 of the Rules which runs as follow : 33. Appointment of paid employees 1 ) The appointment of a paid employee in any registered society shall be subject to such conditions as to qualifications, designation, scale of pay and travelling allowances, furnishing of security, compulsory contribution to provident fund, gtant of leave salary, increment transfer, punishment, suspension, removal or dismissal as may, from time to time, be determined by the Rcgif trar by general or special order. (2) A registered society aggrieved by any order of the registrar under sab-rule (2) may within sixty days of the receipt of such order, prefer an appeal against the order to the State government and the decision of the State Government thereon shall be final. " 3. Under rale 33 (1) of the Rules, the Registrar shall determine the appointment, removal or dismissal etc. of any employee in any registered society under the provisions of the co-operative Societies, Act. If any registered society is aggrieved by any order passed under rule 33 (1) of the Rules, such registered society can prefer an appeal against the order passed under rule 33 (1) to the State Govarnment. Learned Counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any provision in the Act or the Rules made thereunder to suggest that an aggrieved employee can agitate against the dismissal 01 removal order before any authority under the provisions of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act or the rales framed thereunder. Learned Counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any provision in the Act or the Rules made thereunder to suggest that an aggrieved employee can agitate against the dismissal 01 removal order before any authority under the provisions of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act or the rales framed thereunder. Sec.48 of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act provides that the Registrar shall decide any dispute touching the business of a registered Society (oher than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by the society or its managing committee against a paid servent of society ). It is, therefore, cleat that under section 48 (1), the servant of a society cannot file an application for setting aside the order of dismissal or suspension passed agaigst him as such disputes are barred by the provisions of sec.48 (1) of the Act. It is, therefore, clear that there is no provision in the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act or in the rales framed thereunder to redress the grievance of a dismissed employee of any registered co-operative society. 4. In our opinion, if any employee of a registered Co-operative Society is dismissed or discharged from the service, then such an employee can raise the dispute about the validity of an order nf dismissal under section 26 (2) of the Act. It is relevant at this stage to quote the provisions of Sec.26, Sub-sections (1), (2) and of the Act, which run as follows : " 26 Notice of the dismissal or discharge.- 1 ) No employer shall dismiss or discharge or otherwise terminate the employment of any employee who has been in his employment continuously for a period of not less than six months, except for a reasonable cause and after giving such employee at least one months notice or one months wages in lieu of such notice : provided that such notice shall not be necessary where the services of such employee are dispensed with on a charge of such misconduct as may be prescribed by the State Government supported by satisfactory evidence recorded at an enquiry held for the purpose. Provided further that an employee who has been in continuous employment for a year or more and whose services are dispensed with otherwise than on a cbarge of misconduct shall also be paid compensation equivalent to fifteen days average wages for every completed year of service and any part thereof in excess of six months before his discharge in addition to the notice or pay in lieu of notice as prescribed above.2 ) Every employee, dismissed or discharged or whose employment is otherwise terminated, may make a complaint in writing, in the prescribed manner, to a prescribed authority within 90 days of the receipt of the order of dismissal or discharge or termination of employment on one or more of the following grounds, namely, (i) there was no reasonable cause for dispensing with his services, or (ii) no notice was served on him as requited by sub-section (1), or (iii) be had not been guilty of any misconduct as held by the employer, or (iv ) no compensation as prescribed in sub-section (1) was paid to him before dispensing with his service.5 ) (a) The prescribed authority shall cause a notice to be served on the employer relating to the said complaint, record briefly the evidence adduced by the parties, hear them and after making such enquiry as it may consider necessary pass orders giving reasons therefor. (b) In passing such order the prescribed authotity shall have power to give relief to the employee by way of reinstatement or money compensation or both. " 5. On a perusal of Sec.26 of the Act it is clear that no employer shall dissmiss any employee who has been in continuous employment for a period of not less then six months except for a resonable cause and without giving such employee at least one months notice or one months wages in lieu of such notice. " 5. On a perusal of Sec.26 of the Act it is clear that no employer shall dissmiss any employee who has been in continuous employment for a period of not less then six months except for a resonable cause and without giving such employee at least one months notice or one months wages in lieu of such notice. Such notice can be dispensed with if an employee is dismissed or discharged on a charge or misconduct which is supported by satisfactory evidence recorded at an inquiry held for that purpose under sub-section (2) of Sec.26, every employee, so dismissed or discharged, may make a complaint within thirty days to the labour Court on any of the grounds, namely, (1) that there was do reasonable cause for dispensing with his services or (2) that no notice was served on him as required by sub section (1), oc (3)that he had not been guily of any misconduct as held by the employer. In the present case, the allegation of the employer was that the petitioner had misconducted himself. It is alto clear by virtue of Sec.2 (4) of the Act that the petitioner is an employee who has been employed for wages in connection with an establishment. It is also clear that the Chairman of the Sahebganj Vyapar mandal Co-operative Society Ltd. ( hereinafter referred to as the society )was the employer of the petitioner within the meaning of Sec.2 (5) of the Act. It is also clear by Sec.2 (6) that the society comes within the purview of an establishment. Section 2 (6) provides : "establishment means an establishment which carries on any business, trade or profession or any work in connection with, ot incidental or ancillary to any business, trade or profession. . . " It is on the basis of the definition mentioned in section 2 (6) it is cleat that the society was an establishment within themeaning of the Act and the Chairman of the society was the employer and the complainant was an employee who was employed for wages in connection with an establishment. If it is no, the complainant was entitled to raise such a dispute before the Labour Court under sec.26 (2) of the Act. 6. If it is no, the complainant was entitled to raise such a dispute before the Labour Court under sec.26 (2) of the Act. 6. We ate also of the opinion that the type of remedy as is provided under Sec.26 (2) of the Act is not provided any whete in the Co-operative Societies Act and the rules framed theteunder and, hence, this is the only remedy provided to a dismissed employee of an establishment to redress his grievance in respect of the the dismissal order on the receipt of such a complaint. the Labour Court shall cause a notice to be served on the employer and record briefly the evidence adduced by the parties, hear them, and after making such inquiry as it may consider necessary yass orders giving reasons therefore. We, therefore. reject the argument of the Learned Counsel of the petitioner to the effect that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to try a complaint under sec.26 (2) of the Act. 7. The grievance of the learned counsel tor the petitioner was that though the petitioner had filed an application was that though the petitioner had filed an application on 1st November 1976 to produce the pledge register and the receipt and prayed for ptemission to lead evidence in thatconnection in order to prove the charge against the complainant, this prayer was refused by the otdet, dated 1st November, 1976 as mentioned in annexute-3. The Labout Court refused the prayet on the ground that this application was filed wheh the parties bad closed their case and the case was fixed for argument. It was also mentioned in the order that on 22nd Septcmbei 1976), the present petitioner had closed the case and the complainant had also closed the case thereafter. It was also stated in that order no reason had been assigned by the petitioner as to way these documents could not be produced earlier before the closure of his case. In my opinion, the reason given by the Labour Court is correct. The lower court also has held that the very fact that these documents are being produced at such a late stage, it cannot be ruled out that these documents might have been fabricated for the purpose of this case. Hence, in our opinion, the reasoning of the Labour Court is correct and we also uphold the same. 8. The lower court also has held that the very fact that these documents are being produced at such a late stage, it cannot be ruled out that these documents might have been fabricated for the purpose of this case. Hence, in our opinion, the reasoning of the Labour Court is correct and we also uphold the same. 8. The allegation of the petitioner against respondent no.2 was that he bad forged certain documents and records of the society. In this connection, the Labour Court held as follows in paragraph no.20 of the order which runs as follows : " Thus, on consideration of all the facts, evidence and circumstances discussed above, I am satisfied to hold that the opposite parties have not succeeded in proving that the complainant made any forgery or any interpolation in the documents of the Vyapar Mandal. I am also satisfied to hold that the. opposite parties have failed to establish that the complainant has made forgery in the membership register or in any record of the Vvapar Mandal Society. I am further satisfied to hold that the opposite parties have not established that the complainant made any forgery or interpolation in respect to the membership of Jawahar Prasad Singh. The opposite parties have not succeeded in proving any allegation or charge against the complainant. I, therefore, hold that the charges levelled against the complainant by the opposite parties are not correct, nor the same have been established any misconduct on the part of the complainant. Accordingly, I hold that the opposite parties have not succeeded in proving any misconduct on the part of the complainant. Point No.4 is decided in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party. " We also uphold the findings of the Labour Court. We are also of the opinion that there is no "material on the record to suggest that respondent no.2 had forged any document of the society. 9 It is a settled law that this Court does not interfere with the findings of facts arrived at by the Labour Court unless it is preverse or is based on no evidence. We are also of the opinion that there is no "material on the record to suggest that respondent no.2 had forged any document of the society. 9 It is a settled law that this Court does not interfere with the findings of facts arrived at by the Labour Court unless it is preverse or is based on no evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not challenge the findings of facts no these grounds in the circumstances, we upheld the findings and directions of the Labour Court to the effect that respondent no.2 be reinstated to his original post with full back wages and other past benefits.10 In the result, the petition is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.