Patna High CourtCWJC/17670/2010dismissed

Shibu Pandit v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2015-07-31Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17670 of 2010 ====================================================== Shibu Pandit S/o Late Bhabichchan Pandit R/o Vill.-Baluahan, P.O.- Sahila Rampur, P.S.- Hathauri, Distt.- Muzaffarpur .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Labour Employment and Training, Government of Bihar

2. The Presiding Officer Labour Court, Muzaffarpur

3. The Deputy Labour Commissioner, Muzaffarpur

4. The Management of Muzaffarpur Goushala, Muzaffarpur through its Secretary

5. The Sub-Divisional Officer (East), Muzaffarpur cum Chairman Muzaffarpur Goushala, Muzaffarpur .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Lakshmi Kant Tiwary For the Respondent/s : Mr. Harish Kumar, GP-32 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 6.

31-07-2015 Heard Sri Lakshmi Kant Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Harish Kumar, learned Govt. Pleader - 32 as well as learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of respondent no. 4/Management.

The petitioner, invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for setting aside the award pronounced on 29-06-2010 by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Muzaffarpur. It has been prayed that though the learned Presiding Officer has passed the order of re-instatement of the petitioner, no direction has been given for back-wages. In sum and substance, the petitioner has made a

Patna High Court CWJC No.17670 of 2010 (6) dt.31-07-2015 2/2 prayer for setting aside the order to the extent whereby relief in respect of back-wages has not been paid to the petitioner. On perusal of the award, it is evident that after termination, the petitioner was gainfully employed. In that view of the matter, the Court is of the opinion that learned Presiding Officer has committed no error.

The writ petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay U