Y. Ramana Rao vs M/S Timken India Ltd. & Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 4981 Jhar

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                       (Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
                      W.P.(L) No. 3447 of 2012
                          ........

Y. Ramana Rao                                    ..... Petitioner
                            Versus
M/s Timken India Ltd. & Others               .... ..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO (Through : Video Conferencing) ............

For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate.

........

15/22.12.2021.

Heard, learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Indrajit Sinha has submitted that Section 26 of the Bihar (Jharkhand) Shops and Establishment Act 1953 has been complied as respondents have given three months wages to the petitioner, while as per Section 26 of the Bihar (Jharkhand) Shops and Establishment Act 1953, in lieu of one month notice, only one month wages has to be given.

Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Dinanath Rai reported in (1969) 3 SLR 646. Para-8 of which may profitably be quoted hereunder:-

"8. It seems to us that the meaning of the statutory rule is clear. It gives option to the Government to either give a month's notice or to substitute for the whole or part of this period of notice pay in lieu thereof. The rule does not say that the pay should be given in cash or by cheque at the time the notice is issued Knowing the way the governments are run, it would be difficult to ascribe this intention to the rule-making authority. There is no doubt that the government servant would be entitled to the pay in lieu of notice but this he would get in the ordinary course."

Learned counsel for the respondents has further placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Pepsico India Holding Private Limited Vs. Krishna Kant Pandey reported in (2015) 4 SCC 270 paras-13 to 15 as well as the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Madhya Bharat Gramin Bank Vs. Panchamlal Yadav reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 759 para-6.

Learned counsel for the respondents has thus submitted that the impugned order does not requires any interference by the Court, however, petitioner can reply to the same.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Amit Kumar has submitted that this case may be adjourned to be listed in the monthly cause list of January, 2022 so as to give reply and judgment on these points.

Considering the same, put up this case in the monthly cause list of January, 2022.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Jay/