Allowed

Delhi Public School, Bhagalpur v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC17 Dec 2024CWJC/9202/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment quashed orders passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Deputy Labour Commissioner, and Certificate Officer against a school for unpaid wages. The court set aside the orders as they were passed without giving the petitioner a show cause notice or opportunity of hearing, citing a violation of natural justice. The matter was remanded for afresh proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders dated 18.03.2021, 28.02.2022 and 09.12.2021 are set aside. The matter is remanded to the authority to afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing before passing a reasoned orde

Delhi Public School, Bhagalpur Vs The State of Bihar — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9202 of 2022

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Delhi Public School, Bhagalpur through its Vice Principal namely Ashutosh Kumar (Male) aged about 47 years, son of Sri Sachchidanand Prasad, resident of Puja Apartment, Banshi Jha Lane, R.C.M. Pickup Centra, Khalifabad, P.S.Jagdishpur, District-Bhagalpur.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Labour Commissioner, Bihar.

¶7

The Deputy Labour Commissioner, Bhagalpur.

¶8

The Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bhagalpur.

¶9

Anil Kumar Yadav, son of Suraj Prasad Yadav @ Suryanarayan Yadav, resident of Village-Marichak, Near Shital Sthan, P.S.-Barari, DistrictBhagalpur.

¶10

Rajendra Yadav, Son of Late Nageshwar Pd. Yadav, resident of VillageChandheri, Mirajpur, P.S. Sabaur, District-Bhagalpur.

¶11

Rajendra Mandal, son of Sri Patwari Mandal, resident of Village-Ranitalab, P.S.-Zeromile, Sabaur, District-Bhagalpur.

¶12

Md. Afroj Alam, son of Late Md. Sahis, resident of Village-Chamelichak, P.S.-Chamelichak, District Bhagalpur.

¶13

Manikant Chakrawarti, son of Sri Bhushi Yadav, resident of VillageChandheri Hanuman Mandir, P.S.-Sabaur, District Bhagalpur.

¶14

Rajendra Yadav, son of Late Nageshwar Pd. Yadav, resident of VillageChandheri, Mirjapur, P.S.-Sabaur, District Bhagalpur.

¶15

Md. Quamruddin, son of Md. Nafil, resident of Village-Khiribandh, Near Mashhid, P.S.-Jagdishpur, District Bhagalpur.

¶16

Paltu Ram, son of Sri Vaishakhi Ram, resident of Village-Mahagawan Karia, P.S.-Kahalgaon, District Bhagalpur.

¶17

Prabhakar Chandra Ghoshal, son of Late Kamlakant Ghoshal, resident of Village-Sajaur Road, Kelapur Kajrauli, P.S.-Jagdishpur, District Bhagalpur.

¶18

Shambhu Kumar Tanti, son of Sri Ramdev Tanti, resident of VillageMarichak Nayatola, Navtoliya Chauka, P.S.-Sabaur, District Bhagalpur.

¶19

Parshuram Thakur, son of Sri Jagdish Thakur, resident of Village-Ranitalab, Near Shiv Mandir, Fatehpur, P.S.-Sabaur, District Bhagalpur.

¶20

Dhaneshwar Mandal, son of Sri Ram Dayal Mandal, resident of VillageNayatola, Maarichak, P.S.-Sabaur, District Bhagalpur.

¶21

Virendra Kumar Singh, son of Sri Jagdish Thakur, resident of VillageMarchirma, Near Hanuman Mandir, Bhulani, P.S.-Chakranarayanpur, District-Bhagalpur.

¶22

Kishan Kumar son of Late Mahendra Rai, resident of Village Ishakchak, P.S.-Ishakchak, District-Bhagalpur.

¶23

======================================================

¶24

Appearance :

¶25

... ... Respondent/s

¶26

Patna High Court CWJC No.9202 of 2022(20) dt.17-12-2024 2/9

¶27

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Navjot Yeshu, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Anuradha Singh, SC-21 ======================================================

¶28

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY ORAL ORDER

¶29

20 17-12-2024

¶30

Heard the parties.

¶31

The present writ application has been filed for the

¶32

following relief(s):-

¶33

(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) for quashing of the order passed in Minimum Wages Case No. 01 of 2020 dated 18.03.2021 as contained in Memo No. 253 dated 19.03.2021 passed by Assistant Labour Commissioner-cum-Tribunal under Minimum Wges Act, 1948 whereby and whereunder, the petitioner school has been directed to pay Rs. 39,01,956/- to the persons named therein.

¶34

(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) for quashing of the order passed in Minimum Wages Appeal Case No. 01 of 2021 dated 28.02.2022 (Annexure-2) as contained in Memo No. 212 dated 28.02.2022 passed by learned Deputy Labour Commissionercum-Appellate Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Bhagalpur whereby and whereunder the appeal filed by the petitioner school against order passed in

¶35

Patna High Court CWJC No.9202 of 2022(20) dt.17-12-2024 3/9

¶36

Minimum Wages Case No. 01 of 2020 dated 18.03.2021 as contained in Memo No. 253 dated 19.03.2021 passed by Assistant Labour Commissioner-cumTribunal under Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Bhagalpur has been rejected.

¶37

(iii) For the issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) for quashing of the notice issued under Certificate Case No. 04 of 2021-22 (Annexure-3) dated 09.12.2021 issued by the Certificate Officer, Bhagalpur whereby and whereunder he has issued notice to the petitioner’s school for recovery of Rs. 39,01,956/- and also entire certificate proceeding as contained in Certificate Case No. 04 of 2021-22.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that

¶39

the impugned order assailed in the present writ petition has been passed by the authority without putting the petitioner on show cause notice or giving an opportunity of hearing. Counsel has stated that the authority contrary to the facts of the case has passed the impugned order and had the petitioner known about the filing of the case by the private-respondents herein, he could have filed his explanation but the authority have not issued even any show cause notice and passed the order which is ex-parte. Learned counsel has, therefore, prayed this Hon’ble Court to set

¶40

Patna High Court CWJC No.9202 of 2022(20) dt.17-12-2024 4/9

¶41

aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the authority concerned again for passing orders afresh duly putting the petitioner on notice and giving him an opportunity of filing his explanation.

¶42

Per contra the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State as well as the private-respondents have vehemently opposed the very maintainability of the present writ petition. Learned counsel has stated that the orders of the authority does not suffer from any infirmity and the authority had issued several notices to the petitioner but the same were not acknowledged/ignored by the petitioner, therefore, left with no other option, the respondents had to pass the orders. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has drawn the attention of this Court to the notices filed along with the supplementary counter affidavit to show that the petitioner has been served the notices before passing the impugned order. Counsels have, therefore, prayed this Hon’ble Court to dismiss the present writ petition.

¶43

A perusal of the order passed by the authority reveals that the notices were served upon the petitioner and that the petitioner did not bother to file any reply or submit his explanation. However, a perusal of the notices enclosed along with the supplementary counter affidavit reveals that all these

¶44

Patna High Court CWJC No.9202 of 2022(20) dt.17-12-2024 5/9

¶45

notices are addressed to the private-respondents herein and none of the notices contain the signature of the petitioner, nor any acknowledgment from the petitioner institution. In the absence of any proof to show that the petitioner was served any notice prior to the passing of the order, this Court has to necessarily set aside the impugned order. The passing of the impugned order without putting the petitioner on show cause notice is contrary to the principles of natural justice and equity. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Nath Pandey & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2009) 12 SCC 40 has held as under:-

¶46

“ 10. The adherence to principles of natural justice as recognised by all civilised States is of supreme importance when a quasi-judicial body embarks on determining disputes between the parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is in issue. These principles are well settled. The first and foremost principle is what is commonly known as audi alteram partem rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the first limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should apprise the party determinatively of the case he has to meet. Time given for the

¶47

Patna High Court CWJC No.9202 of 2022(20) dt.17-12-2024 6/9

¶48

purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him. This is one of the most important principles of natural justice. It is after all an approved rule of fair play.

¶49

11. Principles of natural justice are those rules which have been laid down by the courts as being the minimum protection of the rights of the individual against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authority while making an order affecting those rights. These rules are intended to prevent such authority from doing injustice. ”

¶50

6. Further it has held as under:-

¶51

“ 16. The process of judicial interpretation two rules have been evolved as representing the principles of natural justice in judicial process, including therein quasi-judicial and administrative process. They constitute the basic elements of a fair hearing, having their roots in the

¶52

Patna High Court CWJC No.9202 of 2022(20) dt.17-12-2024

¶53

7/9

¶54

innate sense of man for fair play and justice which is not the preserve of any particular race or country but is shared in common by all men. The first rule is 'nemo judex in causa sua' or 'nemo debet esse judex in propria causa sua' as stated in Earl of Derby's case, that is, 'no man shall be a judge in his own cause'. Coke used the form 'aliquis non debet esse judex in propria causa, quia non potest esse judex at pars' (Co. Litt. 1418), that is, 'no man ought to be a judge in his own case, because he cannot act as Judge and at the same time be a party'. The form 'nemo potest esse simul actor et judex', that is, 'no one can be at once suitor and Judge' is also at times used. The second rule is 'audi alteram partem', that is, 'hear the other side'. At times and particularly in continental countries, the form 'audietur at altera pars' is used, meaning very much the same thing. A corollary has been deduced from the above two rules and particularly the audi alteram partem rule, namely, 'qui aliquid statuerit parte inaudita altera, aequum licet dixerit, haud aequum facerit', that is, 'he who shall decide anything without the other side having been heard, although he may have said what is right, will not have been what is right' (see

¶55

Patna High Court CWJC No.9202 of 2022(20) dt.17-12-2024 8/9

¶56

Boswel's case) or in other words, as it is now expressed, 'justice should not only be done but should manifestly be seen to be done'. Whenever an order is struck down as invalid being in violation of principles of natural justice, there is no final decision of the case and fresh proceedings are left open. All that is done is to vacate the order assailed by virtue of its inherent defect, but the proceedings are not terminated.

¶57

11. Natural justice is the essence of fair adjudication, deeply rooted in tradition and conscience, to be ranked as fundamental. The purpose of following the principles of natural justice is the prevention of miscarriage of justice. ”

¶58

Having regard to the above mentioned facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 18.03.2021 passed by Assistant Labour Commissioner-cum-Tribunal, the impugned order dated 28.02.2022 passed by learned Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Appellate Authority and the impugned order dated 09.12.2021 passed by the Certificate Officer, Bhagalpur are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the authority concerned for passing orders afresh.

¶59

Having regard to the fact that both the counsels are present before this Court and have stated that they will take

¶60

Patna High Court CWJC No.9202 of 2022(20) dt.17-12-2024 9/9

¶61

notice on behalf of their clients. The petitioner and the respondents either in person or through their counsels shall appear before the concerned authority on 03.01.2025. The petitioner shall be given reasonable time for submitting his explanation and then pass a reasoned order. The authority shall endeavour to complete the entire exercise as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Needless to observe that the petitioner and the private-respondents shall be given an opportunity of hearing and thereafter, a reasoned order passed. Any order passed shall be communicated to the parties.

¶62

With the above direction, the writ petition stands

¶63

disposed of.

¶64

(A. Abhishek Reddy, J)

¶65

sadique/-

¶66

Delhi Public School, Bhagalpur v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Delhi Public School, Bhagalpur v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Laxmi Enterprises Quality offset Printers and General order Suppliers Vs The State of Bhar

Surya Bhusan Kuswaha Vs The State of Bihar

Ranjeet Kumar Singh @ Ranjeet Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Anwar Ali Vs The Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank

Nitya Nand Sinha Vs The State of Bihar

Paridhi Bharti, Ward No.-17, House of Rajkishori Singh Vs The State of Bihar