Patna High CourtCWJC/10526/2007disposed

Bihar State Text Book Publishi v. The State Of Bihar And ANR

2015-01-05Mr. Justice Samarendra Pratap Singh2 pages

Patna High Court CWJC No.10526 of 2007 (20) dt.05-01-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10526 of 2007 ====================================================== BIHAR STATE TEXT BOOK PUBLISHING CORPORATION LTD THROUGH ITS MD PATHYA PUSTAK BHAWAN, BUDHA MARG, POLICE STATION KOTWALI PATNA .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT, PATNA

2. SRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH SON OF LATE SURENDRA PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF MUHALL MALDIAR TOLA CHAKARPUR POLICE STATION MOKAMAH, DISTRICT PATNA .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Suresh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. SC 27 =================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ORAL ORDER 05-01-2015 The Bihar State Text Book Publishing Corporation (herein after referred to as 'the Corporation') has challenged the award dated 16.5.2007, passed by the Labour court in Reference case no. 11 of 1998, whereby respondent no.2 (Sunil Kumar Singh) was directed to be reinstated with all consequential benefits under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. Respondent no.2 states that he joined the Corporation as a seasonal labour in the year 1982-83 for brief period which was dispensed with on 15.10.1984. The dispute was referred to the Labour court. The Labour court found that the order of retrenchment is in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which deals with the conditions precedent to

Patna High Court CWJC No.10526 of 2007 (20) dt.05-01-2015 retrenchment of workmen. In view of the earlier orders passed by this Court, compromise has arrived at between the management and the workman. The Corporation in this respect has also filed supplementary affidavit. Paragraph 5 of the affidavit states that the Corporation is ready to pay a compensation of Rs.60,000/- to the respondent no.2 in lieu of the re-instatement or one time settlement. The opposite party is agreeable to it.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of averments made by the Corporation in paragraph 5 of its suppl. affidavit.

It is expected that the Corporation would make payment of the aforesaid amount to respondent no.2 within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J) Shashi.