Disposed

B.S.F.D.C. v. P.O.Labour Court Ranchi And Ors.

Jharkhand HC16 Aug 2019CWJC/3566/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The judgment records two distinct entries. In the first, a bail petition for modification was dismissed because the petitioner failed to settle a dispute with his wife. In the second, a writ petition filed after a long lapse regarding contractual dues was heard in the absence of respondent counsel, noting a past dismissal.

What did the court decide?

Petition for modification of bail dismissed. Writ petition heard on merits in absence of respondents.

B.S.F.D.C. Vs P.O.Labour Court Ranchi And Ors. — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. M.P. No.1883 of 2019

¶3

----Irshad Khan @ Rashad Khan ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Mafruja Praveen … Opp. Parties. ---For the petitioner : Mr. Soumitra Baroi, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, APP For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. S.K. Singh, Advocate ---Coram: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶4

¶5

05/16.08.2019: Present criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for modification of the order dated 13.03.2019 passed in B.A. No.1289 of 2019 wherein petitioner/applicant has been granted conditional bail for four months to settle the dispute with stressed wife.

¶6

It has been stated that applicant has not surrendered before the court below in spite of specific order to surrender on or before 14^th August, 2019.

¶7

It appears that petitioner has not made any effort and has approached this Court by filing present petition. Vide order dated 15.07.2019, applicant has been granted one more month’s time to approach his wife and settled the dispute.

¶8

Notice has been issued to the wife, who has appeared and filed affidavit. In the affidavit, she has stated that her husband has never approached for settling the dispute.

¶9

On the other hand, counsel for the applicant/petitioner has submitted that he has approached but he has been denied access to the family members.

¶10

From perusal of the order dated 13.03.2019, it is evident that the petitioner has been given conditional bail on the condition that he will settle the issue by approaching his wife or her family members.

¶11

It appears from the statement made in the present application that instead of approaching his wife or family members, he has approached the court below for summoning his wife. Subsequently, one more month’s time has been given. The statement has been made by the petitioner that he has approached his wife but the wife, who has appeared and present in the court, has denied such assertion.

¶12

In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to entertain this criminal miscellaneous petition. Accordingly, the same is hereby, dismissed.

¶13

Ravi/-

¶14

C.W.J.C. No.3566 of 1999(R)

¶15

An application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

¶16

¶17

Bihar State Forest Development Corporation through Divisional Manager, Minor Forest Produce Project Circle, Daltonganj. ... Petitioner

¶18

Versus

¶19

The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi.

¶20

Raj Deo Oraon, Ex-President, Banaso-Banjari Labour Co-operative Society Limited, Palamau.

¶21

Baldeo Oraon, President, Banaso-Banjari Labour Co-operative Society Limited, Palamau.

¶22

… Respondents

¶23

¶24

For the petitioner : Mr. Prabhash Kumar, Advocate For the respondents :

¶25

¶26

Coram: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶27

---- J U D G M E N T

¶28

By Court: Heard counsel for the petitioner. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondents in spite of valid service of notice.

¶29

It appears that earlier case has been dismissed vide order dated

¶30

12.04.2012 for non-appearance of the petitioner. Subsequently, case has been restored vide order dated 08.03.2019 passed in C.M.P. No.525 of 2012 wherein respondents/opposite parties have contested the case through Advocate namely, Mr. V.S. Prasad.

¶31

It appears that a petition under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been filed by the respondent No.3 (Baldeo Oraon, President, Banaso-Banjari Labour Co-operative Society Limited, Palamau, claiming himself to be the president of the said society for payment of contractual dues for the period 1988 to 1990.

¶32

From the pleading, it appears that there was an agreement between the petitioner and the society for collection of Kendu Leaves. It has been claimed that agreement amount has not been paid by the petitioner to the society. Due to non-payment of contractual dues, a

B.S.F.D.C. v. P.O.Labour Court Ranchi And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.S.F.D.C. v. P.O.Labour Court Ranchi And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Umarmodi Ansari Umarmadi Vs Management of Sail, Bokaro Ste

Employers In Relation To The Management Of Putki Balihari Area Of Ms Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs Their Workman Being Represented By The Area Secretary Sampurna B C C L Chalak Samiti

B Venkata Ramana Vs State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Palamau Pramandal Khan Mazdoor Sangh Through Its President Satya Pal Varma Vs Union Of India Ministry Of Labour And Employment Through Its Secretary And Ors.

Kaushalya Kamin Vs Union of India And Ors.

Suresh Gadodia And Anr. Vs Ganesh Mahto

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Umarmodi Ansari  Umarmadi Vs Management of Sail, Bokaro Ste

Employers In Relation To The Management Of Putki Balihari Area Of Ms Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs Their Workman Being Represented By The Area Secretary Sampurna B C C L Chalak Samiti

B Venkata Ramana Vs State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Palamau Pramandal Khan Mazdoor Sangh Through Its President Satya Pal Varma Vs Union Of India Ministry Of Labour And Employment Through Its Secretary And Ors.

Kaushalya Kamin Vs Union of India And Ors.

Suresh Gadodia And Anr. Vs Ganesh Mahto

Umarmodi Ansari Umarmadi Vs Management of Sail, Bokaro Ste