Jharkhand High Court
Sukra Kramali And 76 Others Through Its ... vs State Of Jharkhand on 14 October, 2024
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(L) No. 176 of 2018
Sukra Kramali and 76 others through its Shri Anjani Kumar Pandey
General Secretary Jharkhand General Kamgar Union S/o Late Kripa
Nidhan Pandey R/o Gangu Toli, P.O + P.S. Bahu bazar Dist- Ranchi
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Vice chancellor, Birla Institute of Tecnology Mesra Ranchi, P.O.
and P.S. Ranchi.
3. Secretary, Labour & Employment & Training, Nepal House, P.O.-
Doranda, P.S. Doranda, Dist. Ranchi
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anjani Kumar Pandey, In-person
For the State : Mr. Amitesh Kumar Geasen,
AC to AAG-IA
For the Resp. No.2 : Mr. Nipun Bakshi, Advocate
: Mr. Shubham Sinha, Advocate
---
14/14.10.2024 The petitioner being represented by Shri Anjani Kumar Pandey,
the General Secretary, Jharkhand General Kamgar Union is present in-
person.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent - State and respondent no. 2
are also present.
3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
"For the issuance of an appropriate writ/(s), order/(s), and/or
direction for setting aside the order dated 31-05-2017 that this
is in writ under the payment of wages Act as against the order
dated 31-05-2017 Ane-4 passed in case No. P.W 04/2012 by
Shri Sanjay Kumar Chandhariyavi, the learned presiding
officer, labour court, Ranchi, by which the claim for payment of
unpaid salary has been disallowed and dismissed."
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2
has submitted that the petitioner has a remedy of statutory appeal
under the provisions of section 17 of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and
therefore, the present writ petition may not be entertained. He has also
submitted that there are disputed questions of fact involved in this writ
petition.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 further submits
that vide order dated 13.12.2022 the present writ petition was
adjourned awaiting the judgment to be passed in LPA No. 500 of 2022
arising out of W.P.(L) No. 2796 of 2012. He submits that in the said
writ petition and Letters Patent Appeal, the relationship of employer
and employee between the parties was subject matter of challenge. He
submits that LPA No. 500 of 2022 has been dismissed for non-
prosecution.
6. In response, the petitioner appearing in-person has submitted
that he has filed a petition for restoration of the Letters Patent Appeal.
However, during the course of argument, it is not in dispute that the
impugned order is appealable in terms of section 17 of the Payment of
Wages Act.
7. After hearing the petitioner appearing in-person and the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2, this Court finds
that the writ petition was filed on 11.01.2018 and the defects were
subsequently cured. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
respondent no. 2 raising the objection in paragraph 3 of the counter-
affidavit regarding the alternative remedy of appeal under section 17
of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.
8. This Court finds that there are disputed questions of fact
involved in this case which need not be adjudicated under writ
jurisdiction as the petitioner has efficacious remedy of appeal .
Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to proceed further in the
present proceedings.
9. However, the liberty is reserved with the petitioner to avail the
alternative remedy of appeal in accordance with law within a period of
six weeks from today.
10. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
11. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.
Pankaj (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
