Dismissed

Rambali Prasad v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC29 Jun 2016CWJC/21567/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking direction to Gram Panchayat authorities to pay labour costs. The Court held that the dispute requires fact appreciation and is pending before the Labour Court, making it unsuitable for writ jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

The writ application claiming payment of labour cost was dismissed as a matter requiring fact appreciation pending before the Labour Court.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21567 of 2013

¶3

====================================================== 1. Rambali Prasad aged about 60 years S/O Late Nanhu Prasad Resident Of Village- Ganglobigha, Police Station- Makhdumpur, District- Jehanabad. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate, Jehanabad. 3. The Block Development Officer, Makhdumpur, Jehanabad. 4. The Labour Inspector, Makhdumpur,Jehanabad. 5. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Rajya Panchayat Jagpura Makhdumpur, Jehanabad. 6. The Mukhiya Gram Rajya Panchayat Jagpura, Makhdumpur, Jehanabad. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binod Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Manoj Kr. Ambastha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER

¶4

2 29-06-2016 Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the State. Two counter affidavits are filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3.

¶5

Claiming himself has labour contractor/labour, the writ application is filed for a direction upon the respondents, particularly, the authorities of the Gram Panchayat to make payment of the labour cost to the petitioner as the petitioner supplied work force in execution of scheme no. 01 of 2012-13 executed by the Panchayat.

¶6

From the counter affidavit, it appears the respondents have taken a stand that all due payments have been made. The

¶7

Patna High Court CWJC No.21567 of 2013 (2) dt.29-06-2016

¶8

2/2

¶9

status of the petitioner as the supplier of labour has been disputed. Further, on perusal of para 14 of the counter affidavit , it appears the matter has been raised before the Labour Court, Jehanabad vide proceeding no. 232 of 2013-14. A matter like this cannot be agitated in writ petition as diverse facts have to be appreciated. That apart, the petitioner has already knocked the doors of the Court for the relief. The writ application does not deserves further order to be passed. It is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶10

Dismissal of this application shall, however, not prejudice the case of the petitioner in the pending litigation before the Labour Court.

¶11

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J)

¶12

Shyam/-

¶13

Rambali Prasad v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rambali Prasad 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md.Nasim Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Anul Kujra Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Kamleshwar Kumar Chaudhary Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Gopal Rai and Ors. Vs Paras Rai and Ors.

Pramod Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Kaushalya Devi @ Sushila Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.