IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1571 of 2006 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY AND COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENGINEERING GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF CUM SPECIAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH & ENGINEERING, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENGINEERING, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 5. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH & ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, CIRCLE, MOTIHARI (EAST CHAMPARAN). 6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH & ENGINEERING DIVISION, DHAKA, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN, BIHAR, :--- PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE PRESIDING OFFICER,LABOUR COURT, MOTIHARI. 2. RAJAN KUMAR, SON OF SHRI DEVENDRA PD. SRIVASTAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & P.O.- BAKANEKALAN, P.S.- PATAHI, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN. 3. SHRI VIJAY KUMAR, SON OF SHRI LAL BAHADUR PD. RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & P.O. GAMAHARIYA KALA P.S. CHAURADANO, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN. 4. RAM VINOD THAKUR, SON OF SHRI RAJESHWAR THAKUR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- RATANPUR, P.O.- RAM KRISHNA KABCHAHI, P.S.- SARAIYA, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR. 5. RAMAKANT MAHTO, SON OF ACHEY LAL MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- DHARHARWA, P.S.- CHIRAIYA, DISTRICT- EAST CHAMPARAN. 6. DINBANDHU SAH, SON OF SRI SHIV NATH PRASAD SAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SARPANIA, P.O.- PANCHPAKARI, P.S.- DHAKA, DISTRICT- EAST CHAMPARAN :--- RESPONDENTS. ----------- 4. 27.01.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents. 2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the Award of the Labour Court, Motihari, East Champaran dated 21st October, 2003 passed in Reference Case No. 16 of 1998/01 of 2000, Annexure-1, whereunder Respondent Nos. 2- 6 have been directed to be reinstated for the - 2 - purposes of complying Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the direction passed under impugned Award dated 21st October, 2003 is in teeth of the orders of the High Court and the Supreme Court dated 23.06.1994 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 12072 of 1993 and order dated 06.11.1995 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 2865 of 1995, whereunder the S.L.P. preferred against the order dated 23.06.1994 was dismissed in limine. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that as the termination of the services of the respondents was not interfered with by the High Court under orders dated 23.06.1994 and the said order was also affirmed in the aforesaid S.L.P., the Labour Court ought not to have directed for reinstatement of the respondent workmen for compliance of Section 25F of the Act. In this connection, reliance is also placed on the objection filed by the Executive Engineer before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court contained in - 3 - Letter No. 954 dated 30.12.2000, Annexure-6 requesting the Labour Court to reject the reference raising the dispute on the ground that the matter stands concluded by the order of the High Court dated 23.06.1994. 4. From perusal of the Award of the Labour Court dated 21st October, 2003, Annexure-1 it does not appear that the objection contained in Letter No. 954 dated 30.12.2000, Annexure-6 was ever pressed before the Labour Court, as such, if the Labour Court has not chosen to consider the same in the impugned Award, I do not see any illegality in the Award as no material has been placed before me including the order- sheet of the Labour Court to suggest that the objection dated 30th of December, 2000 was ever pressed before the Labour Court. Further perusal of the High Court order dated 23.06.1994 also does not indicate that submission raising non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act on behalf of the workmen was ever considered by the High Court. In the circumstances, I do not see any illegality in the Award and the writ petition assailing the - 4 - same is dismissed in view of the finding of the Labour Court that before terminating the engagement of respondent-workmen the employer Executive Engineer was duty bound to observe the formalities under Section 25F of the Act. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)