Allowed

Suresh Gadodia And Anr. v. Ganesh Mahto

Jharkhand HC16 Aug 2019WPC/1007/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court examined whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate a money claim arising from a wage dispute where an order was passed under the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, which provides a specific recovery mechanism.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 04.01.2006 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi, in MJ Case No. 3 of 2004 is quashed.

Suresh Gadodia And Anr. Vs Ganesh Mahto — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

W.P. (L) No.1007 of 2006

¶2

An application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

¶3

¶4

Suresh Gadodia

¶5

Pradeep Gadodia ... Petitioners Versus Ganesh Mahto … Respondent ---For the petitioners : M/s Sumeet Gadodia & Aakansha Mittal, Advocates For the respondent : Mr. S.N. Das, Advocate ----

¶6

Coram: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶7

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

¶8

By Court:

¶9

Heard counsel for the parties.

¶10

Present writ petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 04.01.2006 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi, in MJ Case No. 3 of 2004 whereby preliminary objection raised by the petitioners has been rejected.

¶11

It appears that the respondent-employee has filed a complaint petition under Section 26(2) of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, 1953 read with Rule 21 of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Rules,1955 for payment of wages.

¶12

Favourable order has been passed in favour of the employee on 24.09.2002 in B.S. Case No.20 of 1999. For the enforcement of the said order, a petition under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been filed, which has been registered as M.J. Case No.3 of 2004.

¶13

Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Rule 23 of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Rules, 1955 are quoted hereinbelow:

¶14

“33C (2) Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and if any question arises as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which such benefit should be computed, then the question may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, be decided by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government [within a period not exceeding three months:]

¶15

[Provided that where the presiding officer of a Labour Court considers it necessary or expedient so to do, he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend such period by such further period as he may think fit].

¶16

23. Recovery of amount directed to be paid by authority .- Any amount directed to be paid under Sections 26 and 28 may be recovered--

¶17

(a) If the authority is a Magistrate, by authority as if it were a fine imposed by him as Magistrate; and

¶18

(b) If the authority is not a Magistrate, by any Magistrate, to whom the authority sends written requisition duly signed and sealed in this behalf, as if it were a fine imposed by such Magistrate”.

¶19

From perusal of the above rule, it is evident that provision has been made for realization of the dues. It is trite that if a particular Act provides a complete mechanism then recourse cannot be taken through another Act.

¶20

In the present case, favourable order has been passed in favour of the employee under Section 26(2) of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, 1953, which is enforceable under Rule 23 of the of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Rules, 1955.

¶21

In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that the impugned dated 04.01.2006 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi, in MJ Case No. 3 of 2004 is wholly without jurisdiction. Accordingly, the same is hereby, quashed.

¶22

However, liberty is reserved with the respondent-employee to work out his remedy in accordance with law.

¶23

With the above observation and direction, this writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.

¶24

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶25

Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi The 16^th day of August, 2019 Ravi/NAFR/

Suresh Gadodia And Anr. v. Ganesh Mahto

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Gadodia And Anr. v. Ganesh Mahto

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.

B.S.F.D.C. Vs P.O.Labour Court Ranchi 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.

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.

B.S.F.D.C. Vs P.O.Labour Court Ranchi 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.

Umarmodi Ansari Umarmadi Vs Management of Sail, Bokaro Ste