High CourtsDivision Bench(2016) 07 PAT CK 0125

Kishore Kumar Ambashtha vs State of Bihar

Patna High Court · Decided on 19 July 2016 · Citation: (2017) 1 BBCJ 79 : (2017) 152 FLR 999 : (2016) 4 PLJR 929

HON’BLE JUDGES
Mr. Navaniti Prasad Singh and Smt Nilu Agrawal, JJ.
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Letters Patent Appeal No. 1118 of 2013 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6439 of 2009

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 276 words

Mr. Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.(Oral) - Delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

2.

Heard Shri Siyaram Thakur in person who is appellant No 2 and, being the Secretary of the Union, submits that he has authority to appear on behalf of Kishore Kumar Ambastha as well.

3.

The two of the appellants claim to be employees of M/s Bharati Bhawan (P&D), respondent No 4. They claim that though the Management of Bharati Bhawan was paying minimum statutory bonus at the rate of 8.33% to its employees but when the employees demanded higher bonus, some of the employees were given the maximum bonus whereas some were denied the same. Thereafter, the employees made a representation to the Labour Commissioner who directed the Management to consider the same. The Management, not having changed its position, the appellants then filed an application under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, the Act) in those proceedings. The Management took a preliminary objection that there being no quantified demand, the execution proceedings under Section 33C (2) of the Act were not maintainable. The Deputy Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna upheld the preliminary objection of the Management and dismissed the application of the appellants. It is this order that was challenged before the learned Single Judge and, in our view, the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition holding that an application under Section 33C (2) of the Act was not maintainable where the amounts were not being quantified by any statutory authority or the amounts were not admitted.

4.

We have no reason to take a different view of the matter. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.