Babban Prasad Singh v. Chairman Cum Managing Director , Bihar State Power Holding Company Ltd. And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2636 of 2015 ====================================================== Babban Prasad Singh son of Shri Ghurhu Singh Resident of village - Nawalia, P.S. - Kochas, District - Rohtas, Sasaram. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. Chairman Cum Managing Director , Bihar State Power ( Holding ) Company Ltd. Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

2. General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Tirhut Electricity Supply Region, Muzaffarpur.

3. General Manager (H.R. & Administration) North Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd.

4. Dy. General Manager (H.R. & Admin.) North Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd.

5. Dy. General Manager Cum-Superintending Engineer, Tirhut Electric Supply Region, Muzaffarpur.

6. Dy. General Manager-cum-Superintending Engineer, Saharsa.

7. Senior Manager (Finance and Accounts) Koshi Electric Supply Region, Saharsa.

8. The Electric Superintending Engineer, Motihari.

9. The Electric Executive Engineer, Hajipur.

10. The Electric Executive Engineer, Raxaul.

11. The Assistant Electrical Engineer, Lalganj, Hajipur. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Mahasweta Chatterjee For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 16-02-2015 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Having regard to the admitted position that the petitioner is a workman governed by the Certified Standing Order, the remedy for him against the impugned order of dismissal from service passed by the Disciplinary Authority and affirmed by the appellate authority, would only by way of raising an industrial dispute as was held by this Court in the case of Sidheshwar Prasad

Patna High Court CWJC No.2636 of 2015 (2) dt.16-02-2015 Vs. Bihar State Road Transport Corporatin & Ors. reported in 2003(2) PLJR 841 relying on the earlier Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Abdul Khalique Vs. H.E.C. Ltd. & Ors. reported in 1985 BBCJ 114.

When such an observation has been made, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this application in order to enable the petitioner to raise an industrial dispute.

That being so, this writ application is, accordingly, permitted to be withdrawn with the aforementioned liberty. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J) Rishi/- U