Disposed¶26

Sukra Kramali and 76 Others Through Its Shri Anjani Kumar Pandey General Secretary v. State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC14 Oct 2024WPC/176/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sukra Kramali v. State of Jharkhand, W.P.(L) No. 176 of 2018, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.), decided 14.10.2024 - writ petition against Labour Court, Ranchi order dated 31-05-2017 (Case No. P.W 04/2012) rejecting unpaid salary claim; disposed of on grounds of alternative remedy under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and disputed questions of fact; liberty granted to file appeal within six weeks; related LPA No. 500 of 2022 dismissed for non-prosecution.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of appeal under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 within six weeks; pending interlocutory application(s) closed. ¶26

Sukra Kramali and 76 Others Through Its Shri Anjani Kumar Pandey General Secretary Vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors. — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(L) No. 176 of 2018

¶3

Sukra Kramali and 76 others through its Shri Anjani Kumar Pandey General Secretary Jharkhand General Kamgar Union S/o Late Kripa Nidhan Pandey R/o Gangu Toli, P.O + P.S. Bahu bazar Dist- Ranchi

¶4

… … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Jharkhand

¶7

Vice chancellor, Birla Institute of Tecnology Mesra Ranchi, P.O. and P.S. Ranchi.

¶8

Secretary, Labour & Employment & Training, Nepal House, P.O.Doranda, P.S. Doranda, Dist. Ranchi

¶9

… … Respondents

¶10

¶11

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶12

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Anjani Kumar Pandey, In-person For the State : Mr. Amitesh Kumar Geasen, AC to AAG-IA For the Resp. No.2 : Mr. Nipun Bakshi, Advocate : Mr. Shubham Sinha, Advocate ---

¶13

14 /14.10.2024 The petitioner being represented by Shri Anjani Kumar Pandey, the General Secretary, Jharkhand General Kamgar Union is present in-

¶14

person.

¶15

2. Learned counsel for the respondent – State and respondent no. 2 are also present.

¶16

3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

¶17

"For the issuance of an appropriate writ/(s), order/(s), and/or direction for setting aside the order dated 31-05-2017 that this is in writ under the payment of wages Act as against the order dated 31-05-2017 Ane-4 passed in case No. P.W 04/2012 by Shri Sanjay Kumar Chandhariyavi, the learned presiding officer, labour court, Ranchi, by which the claim for payment of unpaid salary has been disallowed and dismissed."

¶18

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2 has submitted that the petitioner has a remedy of statutory appeal under the provisions of section 17 of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and therefore, the present writ petition may not be entertained. He has also

¶19

¶20

submitted that there are disputed questions of fact involved in this writ petition.

¶21

5. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 further submits that vide order dated 13.12.2022 the present writ petition was adjourned awaiting the judgment to be passed in LPA No. 500 of 2022 arising out of W.P.(L) No. 2796 of 2012. He submits that in the said writ petition and Letters Patent Appeal, the relationship of employer and employee between the parties was subject matter of challenge. He submits that LPA No. 500 of 2022 has been dismissed for nonprosecution.

¶22

6. In response, the petitioner appearing in-person has submitted that he has filed a petition for restoration of the Letters Patent Appeal. However, during the course of argument, it is not in dispute that the impugned order is appealable in terms of section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act.

¶23

7. After hearing the petitioner appearing in-person and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2, this Court finds that the writ petition was filed on 11.01.2018 and the defects were subsequently cured. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2 raising the objection in paragraph 3 of the counteraffidavit regarding the alternative remedy of appeal under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.

¶24

8. This Court finds that there are disputed questions of fact involved in this case which need not be adjudicated under writ jurisdiction as the petitioner has efficacious remedy of appeal . Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to proceed further in the present proceedings.

¶25

9. However, the liberty is reserved with the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of appeal in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today.

¶26

10. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶27

11. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.

¶28

Pankaj

¶29

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶30

Sukra Kramali and 76 Others Through Its Shri Anjani Kumar Pandey General Secretary v. State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukra Kramali and 76 Others Through Its Shri Anjani Kumar Pandey General Secretary v. State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr MD Sahnawaj Vs the State of Jharkhand

Hareram Kumar Alias Hareram Thakur Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chamu Pahan Vs the State of Jharkhand (Previously Bihar)

The Project Officer Madhuban Colliery Of Ms Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Through Piyush Kisore Vs Union Of India Through Its Secretary Ministry Of Labour Govt Of India And Ors.

Bokaro Steel Workers Union Through Its General Secretary Birendra Nath Chaubey Vs Labour

Delhi Public School through Satya Brat Shukla Vs State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of Social Welfare Women and Child Development