JUDGMENT : S. B. Sinha, J.–In this writ petition the petitioner challenges the ORDER :dated 2.5.1980 passed by respondent no. 2 as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition. By reason of the said ORDER :, respondent no. 2 has held that the petitioner is an employee within the meaning of the provisions of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1953. 2. It is an admitted case that the respondent no. 3 was employed in Associated Karanpura Colliery. It is also admitted that the said Associated Karanpura Colliery is a coal mine. It is also admitted that at the time when the ORDER :of dismissal was passed, the complainant was working as "wagon loader." 3. Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1953 applies to shops and establishments as defined in the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the said Act). Section 4 thereof, however, carves out an exception and provides that the provisions of the said Act would not apply to any precinct or premises of a mine as defined in clause (j) of section 2 of the Mines Act. There is no doubt that wagon loading is a part of the mining operation. It is also not in dispute that, as a matter of fact, the Central Government in exercise of its power conferred upon it under section 10 (1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 has issued a notification dated 1.2.1975 whereby and whereunder loading and unloading of coal has been prohibited in a coal mine. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that loading and unloading of coal comes within the purview of the mining operation of the job of a wagon loader as performed within the precincts or premises of a mine; the said Act will have no application in such cases. 4. In view of the provisions of section 2 (j) of the Mines Act also if the loading or unloading operation is to be carried out within the precincts or premises of a mine, the same comes within the purview of the definition of a mine. 5. In view of the fact that section 4 of the Act completely bars the applicability of the provisions of the said Act, in my opinion, the complaint petition filed by respondent no. 3 was not maintainable. In that view of the matter, the ORDER :as contained in Annexure-4 cannot be sustained. 5. In view of the fact that section 4 of the Act completely bars the applicability of the provisions of the said Act, in my opinion, the complaint petition filed by respondent no. 3 was not maintainable. In that view of the matter, the ORDER :as contained in Annexure-4 cannot be sustained. However, it goes without saying that respondent no. 3 now shall be at liberty to take such appropriate course as he may be advised for redressal of his grievance and I am sure that keeping in view of the fact that the complainant had filed the complaint petition before a wrong forum if and when such occasion arises, the concerned authority Shall dispose of the proceeding in question as early as possible. 6. With the observations aforesaid, this application is allowed and the ORDER :as contained in Annexure-4 is quashed. However there will be no ORDER :as to costs. Application allowed.