Order Aggrieved by order dated 16.04.2007 by which the learned Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jamshedpur has awarded wages amounting to Rs. 7,94,000/-, to respondent no. 3 for the period between 01.01.2000 and 10.07.2001 and compensation amounting to Rs. 7,94,000/and a direction for future payment with effect from 11.07.2001 till respondent no. 3 attains age of 55 years at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per month as monthly salary with annual retainership of Rs. 4 Lacs per annum with interest at the rate 10% compounding annually, the petitioner-Sparx Technologies Pvt. Ltd. has filed this writ petition. 2. The brief facts stated in the writ petition can be summarised thus ; The petitioner company deals in electronic/computers assembling and distribution. On 19.07.2001, the respondent no. 3 filed a case under Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, 1953 claiming wages from 01.01.2000 to 10.07.2001 with wages till final adjudication of the application and Rs. 4 Lacs per annum. A notice dated 24.07.2001 was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner appeared and filed objections stating that respondent no. 3 was not an employee nor any appointment letter was issued to him. The appointment letter produced by the respondent no. 3 was a forged and fabricated document. The respondent no. 3 has done some odd jobs for the company for which he was paid petty amounts and taking advantage of his access to the office of the petitioner, he illegally used stationery of the company for raising false claim. The parties produced documents and examined witnesses. After 12.12.2006 no notice was issued to the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner did not appear in the proceeding before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jamshedpur and order dated 16.04.2007 was passed. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed reiterating the stand taken before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jamshedpur. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jamshedpur has no jurisdiction to entertain the application of the respondent no. 3. In terms of Section 2 (4) of the Jharkhand Shops and Establishment Act, the respondent no. 3 does not fall under the category of “employee” and in view of definition under Section 2 (5), the petitioner cannot be said to be employer of respondent no.3. Since the respondent no. 3 is not an employee of petitioner, no application under Section 28 would have been entertained. 3 does not fall under the category of “employee” and in view of definition under Section 2 (5), the petitioner cannot be said to be employer of respondent no.3. Since the respondent no. 3 is not an employee of petitioner, no application under Section 28 would have been entertained. The appointment letter produced by the respondent no. 3 is a forged and fabricated document. Initially, the respondent no. 3 did not produce the original appointment letter and he filed a notarized copy of the alleged appointment letter. The matter came before this Court and this Court in L.P.A. No. 413 of 2005 vide order dated 30.08.2005 directed the learned trial court to permit the petitioner to cross-examine the respondent no. 3. The Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jamshedpur proceeded in the matter with material irregularity and the impugned order dated 16.04.2007 has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice in as much as, after 22.12.2006 no notice communicating the date of hearing was served upon the petitioner and the final order dated 16.04.2007 has been passed in absence of the petitioner. The learned counsel has relied on judgments in (i) “T. Prem Sagar Vs. M/s. Standard Vacuum Oil Company, Madras and Others”, reported in AIR 1965 SC 111 , (ii) “M/s Pabbojan Tea Co. Ltd. Vs. The Labour Court of Assam Dibrugarh and Others”, reported in 1977 LAB. I.C. 721 and (iii) in “Satya Narayan Sharma Vs. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) and Others”, reported in 2005 AIR Jhar HCR 254. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3 has submitted that it is not open to the petitioner to question the jurisdiction of the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jamshedpur in as much as, the petitioner itself came up before this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P.(L) No. 2299 of 2005. The respondent no. 3 has produced the original copy of the appointment letter and since Killol D. Kamani and Nakul D. Kamani did not examine themselves in the proceeding in B.S. Case No. 06 of 2001, the respondent no. 3 had no opportunity to cross-examine them with respect to their signatures on the appointment letter. It is further submitted that according to the case of the petitioner itself the respondent no. 3 had no opportunity to cross-examine them with respect to their signatures on the appointment letter. It is further submitted that according to the case of the petitioner itself the respondent no. 3 was not acting as a manager of the company and therefore, the provisions of the Shops and Establishment Act is attracted in this case. The petitioner has taken contrary stand before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jamshedpur and on the basis of materials on record the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jamshedpur allowed the claim of the respondent no. 3 vide award dated 16.04.2007 which does not warrant interference by this Court. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions on behalf of the parties. 8. From the materials brought on record it is apparent that initially though the respondent no. 3 did not produce the original appointment letter however, subsequently he produced the appointment letter, the genuineness and veracity of which has been seriously challenged by the petitioner. In reply to the show-cause filed on behalf of the petitioner before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jamshedpur, genuineness of the appointment letter has been challenged. The petitioner has taken a specific stand that the respondent no. 3/applicant was never an employee of M/s Sparx Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and no salary was ever paid to the respondent no. 3. It was also disputed that the petitioner was the employer of the applicant/respondent no. 3. The maintainability of the application before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jamshedpur in B.S. Case No. 06 of 2001 was also challenged by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to statement made in paragraph nos. 30 and 35 of the writ petition and the Form of Notice, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure10 with the writ petition and submitted that after 12.12.2006 no notice was issued to the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner could not appear before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jamshedpur in proceeding of B.S. Case No. 06 of 2001. 9. From the impugned order dated 16.04.2007 I do not find any discussion on the question of maintainability of the application of the respondent no.3. The learned Assistnat Labour Commissioner, Jamshedpur has not recorded a finding that the respondent no. 3 is an “employee” of the petitioner and the petitioner falls under the category of “employer” as defined in Section 2(5) of the Act. The learned Assistnat Labour Commissioner, Jamshedpur has not recorded a finding that the respondent no. 3 is an “employee” of the petitioner and the petitioner falls under the category of “employer” as defined in Section 2(5) of the Act. Though the genuineness of the appointment letter has been seriously challenged by the petitioner from the beginning, the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jamshedpur has failed to record a finding with respect to genuineness of the appointment letter dated 30.12.1999. 10. In view of the aforesaid, I find serious infirmities in the impugned order dated 16.04.2007 and accordingly, it is setaside. However, since the impugned order dated 16.04.2007 was passed without hearing the petitioner, the matter is remanded back to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jamshedpur. The parties would appear before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jamshedpur on 15.12.2014 and after hearing both the parties, the matter would be decided on the basis of materials already brought on record. 11. This writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.