Patna High Court
Kapildeo Pandit and OrsversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as non‑maintainable because the petitioners failed to establish their employment with the power distribution companies.
Summary
The petitioners, a group of electricity workers, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State of Bihar and various power distribution companies to implement orders, resume their duties, withdraw false cases, enforce labour laws and pay arrears after a strike in January 2016. The petition alleged that assurances were given by the authorities to consider their demands upon withdrawal of the strike, but later the companies dismissed some striking workers and engaged agency staff. The respondents countered that the workers were engaged through an agency, that a tripartite meeting and conciliation proceedings were held, and that the matter was pending before the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Court observed that the petitioners failed to produce any appointment orders or proof of employment with the power companies, rendering the relief sought for resumption of duties untenable. Consequently, the Court held the writ petition non‑maintainable and dismissed it for lack of merit.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to a writ of mandamus directing their reinstatement without proof of employment.
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable in the absence of documentary evidence of appointment.
- Whether the fundamental rights of the petitioners are infringed by the respondents' actions.
Legislation cited
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — s. 12(4)
Subjects
- labour law
- industrial dispute
- strike
- mandamus
- writ petition
- employment
- power distribution
- Bihar
- dismissal
- fundamental rights
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18138 of 2016
======================================================
1. Kapildeo Pandit son of Sri Ayodhya Pandit, resident of village Churaman
Bigha, P.S. Chanan, District Lakhisarai.
2. Munna Kumar Verma son of late Krishna Ballabh Sahay, resident of village
Vichali Kuan Rajgir, P.S. Rajgir, District Nalanda.
3. Pranav Kumar son of Prabhu Rai, resident of village Gauspur Ijra, P.S.
Hajipur Sadar, District Vaishali.
4. Pappu Kunal son of Satyadeo Prasad Yadav, resident of village Gauravgarh
Ward No.4 Supaul, P.S. Supaul, District Supaul.
5. Mahanand Singh son of Bhim Singh, resident of village Kinjar, P.S. Kinjar,
District Arwal.
6. Ranjay Kumar son of Dinesh Chandra Singh, resident of village Rudauli,
P.S. Bachhwara, District Begusarai.
7. Sanjeet Kumar Yadav son of Hardeo Yadav, resident of mohalla New
Bangali Tola, Bank Colony More, Main Road Bus Stand Mithapur, P.S.
Jakkanpur, District Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Labour Resources Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. Bihar State Power Distribution Company Limited through its Chairman-
cum-Managing Director, Vidyut B
4. South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited through its Managing
Director, Vidyut Bhawan, Patna.
5. North Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited through its Managing
Director, Vidyut Bhawan, Patna.
6. The Labour Commissioner cum Conciliation Officer, Bihar, Patna.
7. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Lakhisarai.
8. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Rajgir,
Nalanda.
9. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Hajipur,
Vaishali.
10. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Supaul.
11. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Arwal.
12. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Barauni,
Begusarai.
13. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Kankarbagh II,
Ram Krishna Nagar, PESU, Patna
Patna High Court CWJC No.18138 of 2016 dt.09-01-2026
2/9
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shiv Kumar, Adv.
For the SBPDCL : Mr. Kunal Tiwary Adv.
For the State : Mr.Y.P. Sinha- AAG15
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 09-01-2026
1. The Writ petition is filed for the
following reliefs:
“For issuance of a writ in
the nature fo writ of mandamus
directing the respondents to
implement the order issued from
time to time by the concerned
authority with respect to the
agreement reached between the
petitioners and concerned
authorities including this to allow
the petitioners to resume duty
withdrawal of false cases instituted
against them, enforcement of
concerned Labour Laws, payment of
all arrears in accordance with law
and also inquiry of affairs of the
concerned power companies and
accordingly the rule be made
absolute and or pass such other
order or orders as this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit and proper. “
2. The brief facts, as culled out from the
writ petition, are that the petitioners are citizens of
Patna High Court CWJC No.18138 of 2016 dt.09-01-2026
3/9
India and were working in different divisions of
Bihar State Power (Holding) Company Limited,
South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited,
and North Bihar Power Distribution Company
Limited. It is stated that in the month of January,
2016, when the demands of the employees were
not fulfilled, the petitioners along with other
employees decided to boycott work, commonly
known as Hartal, as permissible under labour laws.
The employees went on Hartal, and subsequently,
assurance was given by the concerned authorities,
that upon withdrawal of the strike, their demands
would be fulfilled and duly considered. Thereafter,
a representation dated 26.02.2016 was filed by the
Union, explaining all the issues, which was also
sent to the Secretary, Labour Department,
Government of Bihar.
3. Further, on 04.03.2016, a detailed
representation was filed before the concerned
authorities, including the Commissioner and the
Hon’ble Chief Minister, in which everything was
explained that the Union of employees along with
Patna High Court CWJC No.18138 of 2016 dt.09-01-2026
4/9
the petitioners would go on different form of
boycott. Thereafter, in place of some persons
(working at that time), other persons were
engaged. Upon withdrawal of the strike, the
Managing Director, Bihar State Power (Holding)
Company Limited issued a letter to the Managing
Director of South Bihar Power Distribution
Company Limited and North Bihar Power
Distribution Company Limited, directing that the
services of such employees to be ensured and also
issued certain other directions. Subsequently, on
12.04.2016, a letter was issued by the Deputy
General Manager, to all concerned Executive
Engineers, Electric Supply Divisions, South Bihar
Power Distribution Company Limited, stating that
the employees who had underwent indefinite
strike, were not allowed to work and thereafter,
their services to be considered to be taken back on
a case-to-case basis, by amending the earlier
instructions issued vide letter dated 08.04.2016.
The Writ petition further disclose that numerous
letters were issued by the concerned departments,
Patna High Court CWJC No.18138 of 2016 dt.09-01-2026
5/9
with respect to the employees of Bihar Power
Distribution Company.
4. A detailed counter affidavit was filed
by the Respondent Nos. 4, 7, 8, 11 and 13 denying
the contents of the Writ petition. The counter
affidavit disclose that the Company issued a
general direction to all Electrical Executive
Engineers (EEE) of Electric Supply Division (ESD),
South Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd., to
requisition and engage manpower through Agency
vide letter No. 196 dated 19.05.2014 to perform
and maintain the power supply system, for which
an agreement between the concerned EEE and
Agency was required to be executed. Further,
Manavbal went on strike for fulfilling their demands
on 11.02.2016, due to which, the entire electric
supply of the area was disturbed. In order to
maintain the power supply system, Law and Order,
certain Manavbal were dismissed and others were
replaced. In the meantime, Pragatisheel Vidyut
Karmi Sanyukt Morcha approached the Labour
Court, Patna, and pleaded to engage the Manavbal
Patna High Court CWJC No.18138 of 2016 dt.09-01-2026
6/9
who had gone on strike from 11.02.2016 to
09.03.2016. After hearing the representative of
Union and Company, the Labour Commissioner
directed the Company to review, on case-to-case
basis with respect to the dismissal of Manavbal,
who underwent strike and further to engage those
against whom, no FIR was lodged. Accordingly,
vide letter No. 58 dated 02.02.2017, Executive
Engineers were asked to engage those Manavbal
against whom, no FIR were lodged and the said
direction of the Labour Commissioner was
complied with. The other two Manavbal, namely,
Sanjeet Kumar Yadav and Mahanand Singh, against
whom FIR were lodged, were made subject to
inquiry with a condition to reinstate them, if they
were not found guilty. The counter affidavit further
disclose that the Manavbal always intended to deal
with the issues in a peaceful manner. However,
they repeatedly forced the management for
implementation of labour laws. In fact, the said
Manavbal were working through an outsourcing
agency, and all such issues ought to have been
Patna High Court CWJC No.18138 of 2016 dt.09-01-2026
7/9
raised before the agency, who is their immediate
employer. If they had any grievance against the
principal employer, i.e., the DISCOM, they ought to
have followed a peaceful approach to place their
matter before the competent authority. Instead of
it, they adopted hooligan approach, resulting in
collapse and interruption of electricity supply
further damaging the property of the Company by
throwing bicycle chains on electric wires, causing
large-scale and mishandled the officers.
5. Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of
the respondent Nos. 2 to 6. The counter affidavit
disclose that a tripartite meeting was held before
the Labour Commissioner, Bihar, on 08.03.2016, to
resolve the dispute, in which the representatives of
the Workers’ Union and Management participated.
The Deputy Labour Commissioner, Patna Division,
Patna, initiated a conciliation proceeding between
the workmen and management, and tried to
resolve the dispute between them. However, the
conciliation proceeding failed and no settlement
could be arrived. Consequently, a report under
Patna High Court CWJC No.18138 of 2016 dt.09-01-2026
8/9
Section 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
was submitted for reference to the Labour Court,
Patna, for adjudication. However, the matter was
lis pendent before the Labour Court (at the time of
filing of the counter affidavit).
6. On perusal of the relief portion of the
Writ petition, it is evident that no specific dates
have been mentioned for implementation of the
orders issued, from time to time by the concerned
authorities. Further, no relevant document was
brought on record to prove that any agreement
was entered between the petitioners and the
concerned authorities.
7. During the course of arguments, it is
admitted by the Learned counsel for the
petitioners that appointment orders of the
petitioners were not filed to prove that they were
employed by the respondent-Company. The relief
sought in the Writ petition is to resume the duties
of the petitioners. In the absence of any
appointment orders/documents to prove that the
petitioners were engaged in the Power Distribution
Patna High Court CWJC No.18138 of 2016 dt.09-01-2026
9/9
Company, the petitioners cannot seek any relief for
resumption of their duties. Therefore, this Court is
of the considered view that the Writ petition itself
is not maintainable and that fundamental rights of
an individual/petitioners are not infringed or
violated.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussions,
the Writ petition stands dismissed, as it is devoid of
merits.
9. Interlocutory Application(s), if any,
shall also stand disposed of.
(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)
Amandeep/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 21.01.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…