Judgment 1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal challenging the judgment dated 20th December, 1994 on C.W.J.C. No. 4008 of 1992: Popular Nursing Home V/s. State of Bihar and Others, [reported in 1995(1) PLJR 750] affirming the award of the labour court passed under the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1953 allowing the application of the employee, respondent no. 2, Mahabir Ojha. 2. This Court is not going into the merits of the matter as to what may have been the alleged misdemeanour of the employee on which an application has been filed by the employee to claim reinstatement and back wages. Suffice it to say that there is an order in the recorded proceeding that the claim of the employee resulted in award dated 27.3.1992. When the matter came up before their Lordships the Hon ble Mr. B. C. Basak, C.J. and the Hon ble Mr. Choudhary S. N. Mishra, J. the proceedings record that there was a direction that the award of the labour court be implemented by 31st January, 1994. It is unfortunate that this matter at the labour court is still pending. 3. Only one submission has been made before us that the nursing home of the appellant does not come within the meaning of the Act. This argument does not impress the court. It needs to be recorded at this stage that when the employee filed a suit to claim reliefs on reinstatement or past wages the objection taken by the employer in the suit was that the suit is not maintainable and the employee should take recourse to reliefs under the Act. Now the employer is estopped from taking legal pleas, to the effect, that this employee is not entitled to any relief under the Act.The employee cannot be unsuited in a civil proceeding and when he files a proceeding under the Act he should face another preliminary objection that the establishment of the appellant is not covered under the enactment, notwithstanding, the objection of the appellant. In generality, the appellant rendered services in a commercial establishment within the meaning of the Act. Whether he comes under the expression establishment or a shop legal ingenuity cannot defeat the claim of an employee. 4. In generality, the appellant rendered services in a commercial establishment within the meaning of the Act. Whether he comes under the expression establishment or a shop legal ingenuity cannot defeat the claim of an employee. 4. The only, matter pending before the labour court now is the aspect of computation of the benefits which the employee may receive in terms of money and other claims mentioned in Section 28 of the Act. Section 28 of the Act is virtually in the same spirit as Section 33C (2) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in effect, to compute monetary benefits in terms of money. 5. If the appellant desires that there be further mitigation of damages, then the proceeding should not be prolonged by taking preliminary objections unsuccessfully in every forum where the employee reaches. The sooner the employee receives the computation in terms of money the better it would be. 6. In the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned judge holding that the proceedings initiated by the employee under the Act is invalid. 7. But the proceedings before the labour court also should come to a close and in the circumstances the Labour Court, Patna is directed to determine the proceedings within six weeks from today upon receiving the certified copy of the order placed before it. No party be given any adjournment. 8. Dismissed.