IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11460 of 2011 Md.Shabbir Ahmad, s/o- Late Hafiz Mohammad Ismail, r/o- Rasulpur, P.O.- Rasulpur, P.s.- Hayaghat, District- Darbhanga, at present residing at Hasanpur Sugar Mills, P.O.- Hasanpur Sugar Mills, P.S. Hasanpur, District- Samastipur. ………… Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Labour Commissioner, Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Labour Commissioner, Bihar, Patna, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Chief Inspector of Factories, Bihar, Labour Compound Building, Bailey Road, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Inspector of Factories, Samastipur Circle, Tajpur Road, District- Samastipur. 5. The Labour Secretary, New Secretariat, Bailey Road, Patna. 6. The Upper Ganges Sugar Industry Ltd. Unit Hasanpur Sugar Mills, P.O.- Hasanpur Mills, Railway Station, Hasanpur Road, N.E. Railway, P.s.- Hasanpur, District- Samastipur, Bihar. 7. The Executive President, Upper Ganges Sugar Industry Ltd. Unit Hasanpur Sugar Mills, P.O.- Hasanpur Mills, Railway Station, Hasanpur Road, N.E. Railway, P.S.- Hasanpur, District- Samastipur, Bihar. 8. Smt. Nandini Nopani, Chairman-cum-Managing Director, 14 Row Land Road, Kolkata 700020 Alipur, P.s.- Alipur, Kolkata-700027. ……….. Respondents For the petitioner : Mr. B.N. Tiwary, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. V.K. Singh, S.C.-5 ----------- 2 20.07.2011 It is the stand of the petitioner that although he was appointed as Welfare Officer by the respondent New India Sugar Mills Ltd but his scale of pay and other service conditions are to be regulated by Rules framed by the State Government known as Welfare Officer’s Rules, 1952. Petitioner has heavily relied on paragraph 14 of the writ application which reads as under. “14. That it is stated that the State Government again amended the Rule 6 vide Notification dated 4.7.2006. This notification was made effective from 1.1.96 but the financial benefit was made applicable with effect from 1.4.99. In the said notification it 2 has been stated that the labour Welfare Officer has been made entitled of D.A. at pare with Government employees proportionately to the same rank/same wage scale of the State Government. This notification was never challenged by any parties and this notification as on date is enforceable against the Respondent company as the Respondent Company did not challenge the 2006 amended Rule of Factory Welfare Officer.” It is the stand of the petitioner that any dispute relating to payment of scale of pay and/or Dearness Allowance/variable Dearness Allowance has to be in line with the said Rules. Learned counsel submits that under the Rules, the Chief Inspector of Factories, Bihar (respondent No. 3) is the competent authority to decide the issue/dispute incase raised before him. It is the stand of the petitioner that appropriate representation has already been lodged with the aforesaid respondent. This Court may direct the aforesaid respondent to consider and dispose of the said application/representation. In view of the said stand taken by the petitioner, this Court disposes of the application by the following order: Let the petitioner file a detailed representation detailing his claims supported by documents, if any, within four weeks annexing therewith a copy of the present order whereafter the said respondent shall consider and dispose of the said application/representation in accordance with law within six weeks of its filing. 3 Let it be recorded that this Court has not gone into the merit or otherwise of the claim raised in the application. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J)