← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/16738/2022dismissed

Upendra Prasad Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2022-12-21Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16738 of 2022 ====================================================== Upendra Prasad Singh Director of M/S Upendra Prasad Singh Hi-Tech Constructions Pvt. Ltd. at Kapasia, aged about- 72 years, male, son of Late Ram Sagar Singh, Resident of Kapasia, P.O.- I.O.C.L., P.S.- Begusarai, District- Begusarai.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Labour and employment, Govt. of Bihar.

2.

The Union of India through Ministry of Labour and employment, N. Delhi. 3.

The Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Mouryalok Complex, A-Block, 2nd Floor, Room No.-6, 16 and 17, Patna.

4.

The Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) Mouryalok Complex, ABlock, 2nd Floor, Room No.-6, 16 and 17, Patna. 5.

Rahmat Hussain son of Bir Mohammad, resident of LIG 30 Bihar State Housing Colony, P.O.- Damodarpur, P.S.- Kanti, District- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Yugal Kishore, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Sarvesh Kumar (GP 24) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI ORAL ORDER 21-12-2022 Heard the learned counsels for the respective parties. Short question for consideration in the present petition is fifth respondent is entitled to gratuity with reference to service rendered by him with the then M/s Upendra Prasad Singh Construction Company Limited read with change of its nomenclature as M/s Upendra Prasad Singh Hi-Tec Construction Private Limited in the year 2005 or not? Merely change of nomenclature of the Company that does not wipe out relationship of employer and employee

Patna High Court CWJC No.16738 of 2022(2) dt.21-12-2022 2/2 among the petitioner and fifth respondent. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order of the controlling and appellate authority. Hence, petitioners have not made out case.

Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. (P. B. Bajanthri, J) Vikash/- U