AMARNATH SINGH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Harindra Dubey (Opposite Party No. 3) was employed as a driver by the petitioner, who owned a small motor transport establishment at Chiraya Tanr in Patna. Opposite Party No. 2 is the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bihar, under Section 28(1) of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1953 (8 of 1954), hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1954. Opposite Party No. 1 is the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bihar, appointed under Section 28 of the same Act.

(2.) An application was filed by Harindra Dubey before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (opposite party No. 2) under Section 28 (1) of the Act of 3954, claim-ins payment of arrears of wages against the petitioner, the amount being Rupees 1,610 plus a certain amount of compensation. It was registered as B. S. E. Case No. 14 of 1966, The claim was allowed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner by his order dated the 14th December, 1966, who directed the petitioner to make payment of Rs. 2,636 to opposite party No. 3. The petitioner filed an appeal against that order before the Industrial Tribunal, Bihar, who by its order dated the 16th of February, 1968, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.

(3.) A preliminary objection was raised by the petitioner before the Assistant Labour Commissioner to the maintainability of the application by opposite party No. 3 under the Bihar Act of 1954 on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim of Harindra Dubey as he was a motor transport worker as defined under the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act of 1961), and, according to a decision of this Court in Bihar State Road Transport Corporation v. Orang Bahadur C. W. J. C. No. 1064 of 1965, D/- 14-10-1966 any matter pertaining to the service conditions of a motor transport worker is governed by the Act of 1961 and not by the Act of 1954. The Assistant Labour Commissioner, however, overruled the preliminary objection on the ground that the petitioner was not registered under the Motor Transport Workers Act, and hence he could not take advantage of the decision of the High Court in the above case.