Patna High CourtCWJC/18437/2010dismissed

Vijay Prakash Upadhaya And ANR v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-10-25Mr. Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18437 of 2010 ======================================================

1. Vijay Prakash Upadhaya S/O Sri Chandradeo Upadhaya Harinagar Sugar Mill Ltd., P.S.- Ramnagar, P.O.- Ramnagar, Distt.- West Champaran

2. Lallan Prasad Srivastav S/O Late Uma Shankar Pd. Shrivastava Harinagar Sugar Mill Ltd., P.S.- Ramnagar, P.O.- Ramnagar, Distt.- West Champaran .... .... Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Dy. Labour Commissioner, Muzaffarpur.

2. Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bettiah, West Champaran

3. Assistant Provident Commissioner, Civil Court, Court Compound, Muzaffarpur

4. Chief Inspector of Factories, Labour Building, Bailey Road, Patna

5. Hari Nagar Sugar Mills Ltd. P.S.- Ramnagar, P.O.- Ramnagar, Distt.- W. Champaran Through Its Chief Manager

6. Chief General Manager, Hari Nagar Sugar Mills Ltd., P.S.- Ramnagar, P.O.- Ramnagar, Distt.- W. Champaran

7. General Manager Farm, Hari Nagar Sugar Mills Ltd., P.S.- Ramnagar, P.O.- Ramnagar, Distt.- W. Champaran .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sourendra Panday, Advocate For the State : Sc23 For Respondent No.5 : Mr. R.K Agrawal, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 25-10-2018 A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of petitioner no.1. Let the same be kept on record. Mr. Sourendra Panday, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner no.1 is not interested to

Patna High Court CWJC No.18437 of 2010 (5) dt.25-10-2018 2/2 pursue the present case as he has been working with the respondent Hari Nagar Sugar Mill and the grievance then raised as the ex-leader of Mazdoor Union, to his understanding has been fulfilled.

He contended that as far as petitioner no.2 is concerned, he has already superannuated about four years back and he has no instruction from him as to whether he is interested in pursuing the matter or not.

In view of the submissions made above and the contents of the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of petitioner no.1 wherein also it has been submitted that the petitioner no.1 is not interested in pursuing the present writ petition, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J) Kanchan/SkSuman.