IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2829 of 2009 BIJUL KANT JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 3.3.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for respondents no. 2 to 5. In this writ application the prayer of the petitioner reads as follows: “(A) For quashing the office order no.2 dated 1.3.2007 (Annexure 12) passed by the Sub-divisional Officer, Rosera- cum- Sepcial Officer, Agriculture Produce Marketing Board (Dissolved), Rosera, Samatipur by which the service of petitioner has been terminated with immediate effect. (B) For quashing the memo no. 295 dated 12.2.2007 (Annexure 11) issued by the Secretary, Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Council (Dissolved), Pant Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna by which direction/ order was given to all concerned persons to not take work from the daily wages employees resulting issuance of termination office order no.2 dated 1.3.2007 of the petitioner. (C) For issuance of appropriate writ/writs, direction/ directions directing the respondent authorities to absorb the service 2 of petitioner and regularize his service in the light of circular no.3/C-15-2004-489 dated 10.5.2005 by which directions were given to all concerned officials to appoint the daily wages employees on priority basis.” There is no dispute that the petitioner was engaged on daily wages as a jeep driver in Agriculture Produce Market Committee under the control of the Agriculture Marketing Board. The services of the petitioner alongwith all daily wages were sought to be dispensed when the Board and its Committee were dissolved by repealing of the statutes itself. In that view of the matter, this Court would hardly find any justification in challenge of petitioner to the order of his removal who was working only on daily wages. Counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that if this Court is not inclined to pass an order for reinstatement of the services of the petitioner on daily wages, this Court may atleast hold that the petitioner is entitled for payment of compensation in terms of section 25F and 3 25FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act. The moment the petitioner would base his claim for compensation in terms of the Industrial Disputes Act, the relief for the petitioner would be available only in a duly constituted proceedings before appropriate Labour Court dealing exclusively with the cases under Industrial Disputes Act. The writ Court cannot adjudicate this aspect because the mode of determination of compensation under Section 25F or 25FFF or its enforcement under section 33(c)(2) of I.D. Act are all within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal/ Labour court. Counsel then would refer to the ratio of the judgment in the case of Munna Kumar Rajak vs. State of Bihar & ors., reported in 2008(4) BBCJ 579. This Court would find that on principle that judgment only decides the rights of a workman, to get compensation in the event of termination of service in the event of closure of establishment. If the petitioner feels that his case also is covered by the ratio of Munna Kumar Rajak (supra) he can definitely approach the authority for a similar relief. 4 That being so, this application is disposed of with the direction to the authorities to consider the case of the petitioner on the same footing as that of other daily wages employees within a period of six months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/