ORDER Narendra Nath Tiwari, J. 1. In these writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 29.5.2002 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur, whereby the learned Presiding Officer has rejected the complaint petitions filed under Section 26 of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) while deciding the question of maintainability of BSE case Nos. 3/2000 and 4/2000 filed by Mrs. Shashi Prabha Chopra and Miss. Manorama Samanta. The learned Presiding Officer has held that the School is not an establishment within the meaning of said Act and has decided the said preliminary objection holding that the complaint petitions filed by the complainants under Section 26(2) of the said Act are not maintainable. 2. The grievance of the petitioners in both the writ petitions is that the learned Presiding Officer has not properly considered the issue raised before him, which is a mixed issue of facts and law and without giving any opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence before the learned Presiding Officer erroneously dismissed the said cases. 3. It has been stated that M/s. Jamshedpur Engineering and Machine Company (JEMCO for short) is a division of Indian Steel and Wire Products, Jamshedpur. The Company carries on business of trade and manufacturing. The Company has got number of residential quarters at JEMCO colony, Jamshedpur and the said quarters were allotted to the petitioners who were the employees of JEMCO. The complainants were transferred in the Establishment Section at the General office of the Company on 10.3.1999 and they joined and worked for about nine months and thereafter their services were terminated w.e.f. 1.12.1999. It has been stated that the termination is arbitrary and illegal and, as such, they are entitled to be reinstated in service with full back wages and other consequential benefits. 4. The Management-respondents contested the said complaint petitions stating, inter alia, that the complaint petitions itself are not maintainable under Section 26 of the said Act as the complainants were Assistant Teachers in Jemco U.P. School, and the said School is not an establishment within the meaning of the said Act. The School was not carrying on any business, trade or profession and/or any work, in connection with or incidental or ancillary to any business, trade or profession. The School was not carrying on any business, trade or profession and/or any work, in connection with or incidental or ancillary to any business, trade or profession. The School used to impart education to children and the teaching in the school was no way connected with, or incidental or ancillary to the business of the Company, which deals with the engineering activities and manufacturing work. 5. The complainants were not the employees and the respondents were not the Establishment as defined under the said Act and thus, the provisions thereof are not applicable. It was further contended that the School itself become defunct and as a result, thereof, the services of the complainants had come to an end. The services of the complainants were not terminated for any misconduct. Since the services of the complainants were not terminated, it was not necessary to hold enquiry, or issue charge-sheet or to comply with the provisions of the said Act or that of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 6. The preliminary point arose regarding maintainability of the said cases filed under Section 26(2) of the said Act. The petition was filed on behalf of the respondents to take up the said issue as preliminary issue and to decide the same. The petitioners contested the said petition. 7. By common order dated 29.5.2002. the learned Presiding Officer considered and passed the order on the said preliminary issue deciding the same in favour of management-respondents. It has been held that the petitioners were the Assistant Teachers in Jemco U.P. School, which does not come within the definition of establishment within the meaning of Section 26(2) of the said Act and, as such, the complaint petitions filed under Section 26(2) of the said Act are not maintainable. The petitions have been thus dismissed. 8. Mr. S.L. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that whether the School in which the petitioners were the Assistant Teachers is an establishment within the meaning of the said Act is a mixed question of law and fet. In order to come to a decision, evidences were required to be adduced to prove the facts in controversy. The parties should have been given opportunity to bring the evidences in support of their respective claims. In order to come to a decision, evidences were required to be adduced to prove the facts in controversy. The parties should have been given opportunity to bring the evidences in support of their respective claims. But without affording any opportunity and in absence of any such evidence on record, learned Presiding Officer has dismissed the said complaint cases holding that the School in which the petitioners were the Assistant Teachers does not come within the meaning of establishment. Learned Presiding Officer has thus acted arbitrarily and has passed on assumption and surmises, which are liable to be quashed. 9. Learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioners admittedly were the Assistant Teachers in Jemco U.P. School. There was no disputed fact, which was required to be proved. It was unnecessary to prolong the proceeding for evidences when the same is barred under law. It is well established that the School is not an establishment and the teachers in the School are not the employees within the meaning of the said Act. It is the admitted position that the said School except imparting education was not involved with any other business, trade or profession. The facts admitted require no proof. There was nothing to be established by evidence and the proceeding has been disposed of on admitted facts and in accordance with law. 10. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as facts and material, appearing on record. In the impugned order, learned Presiding Officer has considered all the grounds and aspects, which have been raised in this writ petition. After thorough consideration of all the stands taken by the respective parties and in view of admitted position that the petitioners were Assistant Teachers in Jemco U.P School, learned Presiding Officer has come to the conclusion that the School being not an establishment, the petitioners cannot be said to be the employees within the meaning of the said Act. The complaints do not fall within the scope and ambit of the said Act. Learned Presiding Officer has also noticed the various decisions of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court in which it has been held that the educational Institutions imparting education are neither business nor trade and the same do not come within the meaning of the ambit of establishment. 11. Learned Presiding Officer has also noticed the various decisions of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court in which it has been held that the educational Institutions imparting education are neither business nor trade and the same do not come within the meaning of the ambit of establishment. 11. On the admitted facts, learned Presiding officer applied proper law. He held that the issue is a pure question of law and no evidence is required for proving the same. I find no infirmity and illegality in the impugned orders, warranting any interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There being no merit, both the writ petitions are dismissed.