DINANATH PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner Shri Dinanath Prasad has challenged the order dated 9th August, 1984, passed by respondent Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Kosi Division, Purnea, whereby miscellaneous case no. 57 of 1983. has been rejected, copy of the said order is made Annexure 2 to this writ application. The petitioner has further challenged the order dated 24th April, 1987, passed by respondent Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Purnea, by which miscellaneous case no. 1 of 1984 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

(2.) SHORTLY stated the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was a driver of truck no. BRK 2752, which belonged to respondent no. 3 at the monthly salary of Rs. 250/ -. It is alleged that while he was on duty, he was arrested by the police on 27th July, 1970 and remained in Jail custody till 1st July, 1980. Ultimately the petitioner was acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Purnea in Sessions Trial No. 18 of 1976. Allegation against the petitioner is that he intentionally killed one Chaukidar and Dafadar while he was driving the aforesaid vehicle. After the petitioner was acquitted, he approached the respondent owner of the truck for payment of his salary as well as the expenditure incurred by him in the proceeding and also the compensation for the damages caused to the petitioner and his family members, which has been refused by the owner. Being aggrieved by the action of his master, he filed a petition, claiming the wages with consequential relief from his master, before the Labour Court, Bhagalpur, which was registered as miscellaneous case no. 30 of 1981. The petitioner subsequently withdrew the said miscellaneous case on 17th November, 1983. On 28.11.1983 the petitioner again filed a petition for the same relief on the same cause of action which was registered as miscellaneous case no. 57 of 1983. The said miscellaneous case was ultimately dismissed on 9.8.1984 copy of the said order is made Annexure -2 to this writ application. Instead of challenging the order dated 9.3.1984 the petitioner filed another application before the Labour Court, Purnea, which was registered as miscellaneous case no. 1 of 1984 and ultimately, the said miscellaneous case was dismissed by the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Purnea, by order dated 24.4.1987, copy of the said order is made Annexure -3 to this writ application. Both the orders dated 9.8.1984 and 24.4.1987 are under challenge in this writ application. Both the Labour Court Bhagalpur as well as Purnea has dismissed the miscellaneous case registered on the basis of the application filed by the petitioner mainly on the ground that since the earlier application filed by the petitioner, on the basis of which miscellaneous case no. 30 of 1981 was registered, having been withdrawn, the subsequent application for the same relief cannot be allowed and on that ground both the miscellaneous cases filed were rejected.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order of the labour court mainly on the ground that the petitioner filed petition before Labour Court, Bhagalpur for withdrawal of the said miscellaneous case no. 30 of 1981 with permission to file a fresh petition, and, as such, the reason assigned by the labour court is wholly misconceived and based upon error of record. In support of his contention learned counsel has relied upon Annexure -2 1/1 which is the petition alleged to have been filed before the Labour Court, Bhagalpur, in order to show that the prayer for filing a fresh petition was made and on that basis the labour court has permitted the petitioner to withdraw the application. According to the learned counsel, it will be deemed to have been accepted the prayer for filing second application by the Labour Court. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner has to be rejected on the ground firstly that the order was passed in miscellaneous case no. 57 of 1983 on 9.8.1984 has not been challenged until the order passed by the Labour Court, Purnea in the year 1987. Further it appears from the order of the Labour Court, Purnea that no such prayer for filing second application has been made in the application for withdrawal of the miscellaneous case. Labour Court, Purnea has specifically referred the application filed by the petitioner and categorically stated that no such prayer has been made in the petition. That apart, no reason has been assigned as to why miscellaneous case no. 30 of 1981 was withdrawn in the year 1983. In course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the owner of the truck was not made a party and instead, his father was made a party in the proceeding and on that ground the miscellaneous case was withdrawn.