IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.767 of 2010
1. NARAYAN JHA S/O LATE YOGENDRA JHA R/O VILL.- DUDHIYAWA, SAREYA OJHA TOLA,
P.O. SAREYA BAZAAR, P.S.- PAHARPUR, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN
2. SANTOSH KUMAR @ SANTOSH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA S/O LATE UMASHANKAR SRIVASTAVA R/O
VILL.- KUMHIYA, P.O.- KHARPOKHRA, P.S.- BAGAHA, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN
3. PRAKANT KUMAR SINHA S/O LATE RAJESHWAR PRASAD R/O VILL.- KARAMWA, P.S.-
DHAKA, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN
4. SADAN SAH S/O SHRI GOPAL SAH R/O VILL.- SATAHA, P.O.- NAWADIH, P.S.-
PAHARPUR, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN
5. MITHU YADAV S/O SHRI JHABU YADAV R/O VILL.- SATAHA, P.O.- NAWADIH, P.S.-
PAHARPUR, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN
6. JITENDRA THAKUR S/O SHRI SHIVSHANKAR THAKUR R/O VILL.- SATAHA, P.O.-
NAWADIH, P.S.- PAHARPUR, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN
7. SRIDAM MANJHI S/O SHRI DHANGAR MANJHI R/O VILL.- KAPASHARIA, P.O.- BORA,
P.S.- CHANDITALA, DISTT.- HOOGHLY (WEST BENGAL)
8. KUMAR RAJNISH S/O SHRI BIPIN BIHARI VERMA R/O VILL.- VAGAYANA, P.O.-
MUSAHARWA, P.S.- SATHI, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, BIHAR STATE
GOVERNMENT, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA
3. THE LABOUR ENFORCEMENT OFFICER BETTIAH, WEST CHAMPARAN
4. M/S PRASAD REFRIGERATION AND AGRO INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., SATAHA P.O.-
NOWADIH, P.S.- PAHADPUR, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN, THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
5. MRS. PRATIMA PRASAD, THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF PRASAD REFRIGERATION AND AGRO
INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. SATAHA, P.O.- NOWADIH, P.S.- PAHADPUR, DISTT.- EAST
CHAMPARAN
6. MR. ARVIND KUMAR, DIRECTOR M/S PRASAD REFRIGERATION AND AGRO INDUSTRIES
PVT. LTD., SATAHA, P.O.- NOWADIH, P.S.- PAHADPUR, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN
7. MR. RAJESH KUMAR UPADHYAY, GENERAL MANAGER M/S PRASAD REFRIGERATION AND
AGRO INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., SATAHA, P.O.- NOWADIH, P.S.- PAHADPUR, DISTT.- EAST
CHAMPARAN
8. MR. SUDHIR KUMAR SINGH, MANAGER FINANCE M/S PRASAD REFRIGERATION AND AGRO
INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., SATAHA, P.O.- NOWADIH, P.S.- PAHADPUR, DISTT.- EAST
CHAMPARAN
-----------
2/ 14/03/2011 Learned counsel for the petitioner finds it
difficult to convince the Court that in the nature of
the relief claimed against a ‘lay off’ which pertains to
the domain of the Industrial Disputes Act and that in
view of a remedy available under that Act the writ
application is maintainable. He, therefore, prays for
leave to withdraw the application to pursue remedies
under the Industrial Disputes Act as the petitioner
may be advised.
2
The application is dismissed as withdrawn
with the liberty as aforesaid.
KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)