The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by an employee challenging the rejection of his claim for benefits under the Bihar Shops & Establishments Act as barred by limitation, noting no procedural error by lower courts.
The writ petition is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6626 of 2008
====================================================== Binod Kumar Singh son of Shree Jagdish Singh, resident of Mohalla Naya Tola (H/o Sri Inderdeo Singh) Police Station Kadamkuan, District Patna .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Labour and Employment, Bihar, Patna 2. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna and Appellate Authority U/S 28 (7) of the B.S.E.Act 3. The Manager , M/s Bharti Bhawan (P & D), Thakurwari Road, Police Station Kadamkuan, District Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rabindra Prasad Singh, Advocate For the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, AC to GP 16 For the Respondent No.3 : Mr.Alok Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr.Indrajeet Bhushan, Advocate Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER --------------- 11 28-04-2015 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18.01.2006 (Annexure-1) passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patna in B.S.E.Case No. 09 of 2003 whereby the claim raised on behalf of the petitioner in terms of Section 28 (1) of the Bihar Shops & Establishments Act, 1953 (in short, “the Act”) has been rejected being barred by limitation. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the appellate order/judgment dated 26.03.2007 (Annexure-2) passed in B.S.E.Appeal No. 02 of 2006 by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna and Appellate Authority under Section 28 (7) of the Act whereby the aforesaid appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner has been dismissed and the order passed by the learned Labour Court has been affirmed.
Patna High Court CWJC No.6626 of 2008 (11) dt.28-04-2015
2/2
3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner raised his claim under Section 28(1) of the Act for the period from 1994 to March, 2002. The aforesaid petition was filed on 15.10.2003. Rule 22 (1) of the Bihar Shops & Establishments Rules, 1995 prescribes that an application under Section 28 (1) of the Act can be filed within a period of six months from the date when cause of action arises. Proviso to Rule 22 (1) gives power to the prescribed authority to condone the delay in filing such application if sufficient cause is shown by the employee in filing such claim belatedly.
4. Learned Labour Court as also learned Industrial Tribunal have recorded the finding of facts in the impugned orders as contained in Annexures- 1 and 2 that the petitioner failed to show sufficient cause in filing application under Section 28 (1) of the Act beyond the time prescribed. The claim filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed on the ground of limitation.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner though argued the matter at length, but he has not been able to point out either any procedural error or legal infirmity in the orders impugned.
6. In above view of the matter, particularly, in view of the finding of facts recorded by two courts, this Court finds no good ground to interfere with the impugned orders.
7. In the result, the writ petition has to fail and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.
(Birendra Prasad Verma, J)
Tahir/U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the order dismissing the claim for period of wages/leave due as barred by limitation due to failure to show sufficient cause for delay.
If no procedural error or legal infirmity exists in the impugned orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal regarding the dismissal of the claim.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Binod Kumar Singh
The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Labour and Employment
The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna and Appellate Authority U/S 28 (7) of the B.S.E.Act
The Manager, M/s Bharti Bhawan (P & D)
Birendra Prasad Verma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
