JUDGEMENT A.K. GANGULY, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length at the admission stage. This matter is disposed of finally at the admission stage itself. 2. The subject matter of challenge in this writ petition is an award given by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Purnea on the complaint filed by Respondent no.2 under section 26 of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act. The said order of the Presiding Officer Labour Court, Purnea is dated 13th December, 1998. The said award has been challenged before this Court on various grounds. 3. Learned counsel for the company has challenged the said award mainly on two grounds, firstly on the question that he said complaint is barred by delay in view of provisions of Section 26 (2) of the said Act under which the complaint has to be filed within 90 days. 4. The next ground on which it was attacked is that under section 26(5) of the said Act, the authorities hearing the complaint has jurisdiction to hold enquiry itself and then pass necessary orders by giving reasons there for. The learned counsel submits that in the instant case without holding such enquiry the authorities have directed reinstatement. Out of these two grounds, the first ground relating to the limitation has not been very seriously pressed. 5. But the learned counsel for the Company has very seriously urged the second ground. The learned counsel urged that the Labour Court while giving its findings has come to the conclusion that the enquiry has not been properly held, in as much as, proper opportunity of defence was not given to respondent no.2, but the learned counsel urged, that even assuming that proper opportunities are not given to the respondent no.2 to defend himself in respect of the charges, but then the Presiding Officer Labour Court cannot direct reinstatement of respondent no.2 without himself holding any enquiry into the charges and without a finding that the charges are baseless. 6. Learned counsel submits that he is urging this point especially in view of the fact that the Presiding Officer, Labour Court held that the charges, if proved, amount to misconduct of respondent no.2. 7. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 was also been heard in this matter. Learned counsel sought to contest the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 was also been heard in this matter. Learned counsel sought to contest the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. She has pointed out that in the instant case admittedly no proper opportunity has been given to respondent no.2 to defend himself on the charges, and the entire enquiry is vitiated on that ground. So the order of reinstatement passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court can be the only natural consequence of the main finding that there has not been a proper enquiry. In other words learned counsel urged that as the respondent no.2 has been dismissed without a proper enquiry, reinstatement is automatic. This Court, considering rivals submissions made by the parties, is of the opinion that there is some substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment in the case of the Chairman M/s. Brooke Bond India Ltd & Anr. Vs. Chandranath Choudhary, reported in AIR 1969 (SC) page 992. Reliance in this connection was placed in para-14 at page 998 of the said judgment. In para-14 of the said judgment the learned Judges of the Supreme Court held that there can be no comparison between section 26 of the Shops and Establishment Act and Section 33(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The purposes of both the sections are different. 9. On a construction of the provisions of Sub-Section (2) and Sub-Section (5) of Section 26 of Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, the learned Judges of the Supreme Court held that the competent authority is entitled to record evidence and come to its own findings on such evidence, and such findings can be recorded independently of the findings given in the domestic enquiry. It has further been held that the proceedings under section 26 of the Act are not by way of an appeal against the order passed in the domestic enquiry. The said proceedings are independent and original proceedings where the competent authority namely the Labour Court has to arrive at its own findings on the evidence to be adduced before it. The said observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Brooke Bond (Supra) has been subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court once again in the case of United Planters Association of Southern India Vs. The said observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Brooke Bond (Supra) has been subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court once again in the case of United Planters Association of Southern India Vs. K.G. Sangameswarah & Anr. reported in 1997 (4) SCC page 741. In paras 20 and 21 of the said judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court affirmed the decision in Brooke Bonds (Supra) after noticing the provisions of section 26 of Bihar Shops and Establishment Act. 10. In that view of the matter, this Court holds that in the instant case it was incumbent upon the Presiding Officer, Labour Court to come to his own findings on the evidence which was to be led before him before ordering reinstatement in favour of respondent no.2. It is a very essential requirement in view of the fact that the findings of the Labour Court in the instant case are that the charges as levelled against the petitioner amount to misconduct. Even after holding that he has directed reinstatement of respondent no.2 merely on the finding that there has been no proper enquiry. 11. This Court is of the opinion that before directing reinstatement, the Labour Court should have held an enquiry in respect of the charges and if he finds that the petitioner is not guilty in respect of the charges, he can direct reinstatement, but this has not been done and as such this is an infirmity in the order of the labour court. The said order is therefore quashed in so far as direction relating to reinstatement is concerned. But this Court does not disturb any other finding arrived at in the said order. 12. This Court therefore remits the matter to the Labour Court for holding enquiry on the charges against respondent no.2. Such enquiry be held by the Labour Court itself and for the purpose of holding such enquiry, the Labour Court must give notice to the parties including the petitioner company and respondent no.2 for producing their evidence and witnesses, if any. 13. Since, this matter is pending for a long time, this Court directs that such enquiry may be held and concluded by the Labour Court as early as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of a copy of this order upon the said Labour Court. 13. Since, this matter is pending for a long time, this Court directs that such enquiry may be held and concluded by the Labour Court as early as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of a copy of this order upon the said Labour Court. The petitioner and respondent no.2 must cooperate with the Labour Court in the matter of conclusion of the enquiry within the time fixed above. 14. This Court, however, observes that since in the instant case there is already an order for reinstatement in favour of the petitioner, and the said order of reinstatement has been passed in the month of December, 1998 and the said order of reinstatement has not been interfered with for about one year, the same order has not been stayed either. 15. Considering these aspects of the matter and the requirement of justice in this case, this Court directs the petitioner's company to pay an amount of Rs. 30,000/- by way of compensation payment to the petitioner. Such payment must be made within a period of six weeks from today. If the aforesaid payment is not made, in that case in the enquiry which has to be held by the Labour Court, the petitioner company will not be allowed to adduce any evidence. This writ petition is thus disposed of with the above observations and directions. NO costs.