Dismissed

Subhchandra Mishra v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC23 Jun 2016L.P.A/558/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed. The court held that since the Industrial Tribunal, acting as a Disciplinary Authority under the Industrial Disputes Act, had examined the evidence and proved the appellant's misconduct, the High Court found no error in its order confirming the dismissal and declined to interfere.

What did the court decide?

The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed and the orders below are affirmed.

Subhchandra Mishra Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Letters Patent Appeal No.558 of 2015 Arising out of

¶3

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10122 of 1994

¶4

=========================================================== Subhchandra Mishra, Son of Late Purushottam Mishra, Resident of Dhanga Pachhwari Tola @ Thanga Pechhwari Tel, Post- Thanga Pechhwari Tel @ P.O. Dhanga, Distt. - Madhubani.

¶5

.... .... Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal , Patna.

¶9

The Managing Director, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Patna.

¶10

The Divisional Manager, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Dhanbad.

¶11

.... .... Respondents

¶12

=========================================================== Appearance :

¶13

For the Appellant : Mr. Jai Prakash Verma, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Saroj Kumar Sharma, A.C. to A.A.G. 5.

¶14

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

¶15

and

¶16

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH

¶17

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶18

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA) Date: 23-06-2016

¶19

Re.:I.A. No. 2474 of 2015

¶20

The application is for condonation of delay of 273 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal.

¶21

For the reasons mentioned in the Interlocutory Application, we are satisfied that the appellant has shown sufficient cause to seek condonation of delay of 273 days in filing the present Letters Patent Appeal.

¶22

Consequently, Interlocutory Application No. 2474 of 2015 is allowed and delay of 273 days in filing the Letters Patent

¶23

Patna High Court LPA No.558 of 2015 dt.23-06-2016

¶24

2 /3

¶25

Appeal is condoned.

¶26

Re.: L.P.A. No. 558 of 2015

¶27

The order dated 16^th of August, 2013 passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 10122 of 1994 is subject matter of challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal. Vide the aforesaid order, the learned Single Bench has not interfered with the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal on 30^th of August, 1994 confirming the order of dismissal of the appellant under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the appellant was exonerated by the Disciplinary Authority but without recording any reasons of disagreement, the Managing Director proceeded to impose punishment which punishment has since been approved by the Industrial Tribunal.

¶29

The learned Tribunal confirmed the order of dismissal after examining the evidence in detail finding that illicit video cassettes in large number were found in the bus on two occasions when the appellant was in-charge of the bus as Conductor. Consequently, the order of dismissal passed by the Managing Director on 28^th of December, 1992 was affirmed.

¶30

The Industrial Tribunal while exercising the power

¶31

Patna High Court LPA No.558 of 2015 dt.23-06-2016

¶32

3 /3

¶33

under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act has jurisdiction to examine the evidence as a Disciplinary Authority in terms of the provisions of Section 11A of the Act. Since the Industrial Tribunal has examined the evidence in detail itself; the Industrial Tribunal acting as a Disciplinary Authority, has a right to impose punishment as it deems appropriate. In these circumstances, any irregularity in the Disciplinary Proceeding by the Management is of no consequence when the Management proves misconduct before the Industrial Tribunal in terms of Section 11A of the Act.

¶34

Since the Industrial Tribunal has found the misconduct proved against the appellant, we do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Bench which may warrant interference in the present intra court appeal.

¶35

The Letters Patent Appeal is, thus, dismissed.

¶36

(Hemant Gupta, J)

¶37

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

¶38

P.K.P./P.Kumar N.A.F.R.

¶39

Subhchandra Mishra v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhchandra Mishra v. The State Of Bihar 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

The Bihar State Electronics Development Corporation and Anr. Vs Mahendra Mohan Roy

Geeta Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Manish Kumar Vs The Assistant Engineer Electric Supply Sub Division Bihar State Electricity Board

Nasrin Begum Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Rajeev Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

The State Of Bihar and Ors. Vs Jokhan Singh