MAHABIR OJHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals seek exception to a common order passed by the learned Writ Court deciding, writ petitions being C.W.J.C. No. 14384 of 2009 (Mahabir Ojha Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) and C.W.J.C. No. 11268 of 2009 (Popular Nursing Home Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.).

(2.) Appellant Mahabir Ojha in L.P.A. No. 583 of 2011 was working in the establishment of Popular Nursing Home, appellant in L.P.A. No. 606 of 2011. In the orders passed by the Writ Court they are referred to as "Workman" and "Management" respectively. Be it as it may be, the services of the workman was terminated on 26.03.1981. This led to his raising a dispute under the Bihar Shops & Establishment Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to "the Shop Act") before the Labour Court under Section 26 of the Shop Act. The Labour Court allowed his claim and on 27.03.1992 directed for his reinstatement with back wages and all other consequential benefits. The management challenged the Award before this Court in a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 4008 of 1992. This was dismissed on 20th of December, 1994 and an L.P.A. being No. 24 of 1995 filed was also dismissed on 12.12.2002, meaning thereby that the Award passed by the Labour Court on Patna High Court LPA No.583 of 2011 dt.02-11-2017 27.03.1992 attained finality and should have been implemented in its letter and spirit. However, when the Award was not implemented, the workman approached the Labour Court again under Section 28(1) of the Shop Act raising a claim for payment of wages and other benefit along with penalty and compensation. This was allowed vide order passed on 21.02.2003 by the Labour Court and aggrieved by this, both the management and the workman preferred appeal before the Tribunal being Appeal No. 01/2003 and 03/2003. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Management and the workman's appeal was allowed in part directing for payment of certain amount with interest. The writ petitions in question were filed challenging these proceedings both by the management and the workman. The management challenged the quantification done and the workman also was aggrieved by the manner in which the benefit of penalty and compensation was assessed and paid to him. The learned Writ Court has dismissed both the writ petitions and, therefore, these appeals by the management and the workman.

(3.) As far as the case of the management is concerned, they have primarily challenged the execution proceeding mainly on the ground that it is the trust who is the employee and after death of one of the trustees the proceedings for execution were not maintainable. The learned Writ Court has dealt with this aspect, has taken note of the provisions of the Indian Trust Act and has rejected the contention.