Gajendra Nag v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.

CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO ......... For the Petitioner For the respondent-State For the respondent nos.2 & 3 : Mr. Prabhash Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Awanish Shekhar, AC to AAG-I : Mr. Piyush Chitresh, Advocate 17/ 05.04.2022. …... After some argument, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Prabhash Kumar has submitted that petitioner has wrongly filed an application before the learned Labour Court, Ranchi under Section 33C(2) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, which was adjudicated on the basis of the evidence brought on record. But the learned Presiding Officer has considered that dispute cannot be adjudicated under Section 33C(2) ID Act rather the same can be adjudicated under Section 10 of the ID Act, as such, petitioner may be allowed to withdraw the application so as to seek legal remedy available under the law. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, Mr. Awanish Shekhar, AC to AAG-I and learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3, Mr. Piyush Chitresh have no objection. Considering the same, the instant Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to the petitioner to avail the legal remedy available under the law. However, while considering application for condonation of delay, the Labour Court may consider the same under Section 14 of the Limitation Act as petitioner has preferred the application before the wrong forum and will pass order, in accordance with law. (Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) R.S.