Patna High Court
Kapileshwar ChoudharyversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as it is not maintainable; the award is inoperative and the petitioner should have pursued the statutory remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Summary
The petitioner, a driver employed by the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, was suspended and later dismissed in 1991 following a disciplinary enquiry. He challenged the dismissal before the Labour Court, which in 2006 awarded reinstatement with full back wages and consequential benefits. Despite the award, an office order dated 8 February 2008 denied payment of the back wages, prompting the petitioner to file a writ petition in 2013 seeking quashing of that order and enforcement of the award. The respondents contended that the petition was barred by delay, laches, and the existence of an alternative statutory remedy under Section 33‑C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that the award had become inoperative under Section 17A and Section 19 of the same Act. The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable, as the petitioner failed to avail the prescribed remedy and the award could not be enforced under the statutory framework. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable in view of the delay and the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 33‑C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
- Whether the Labour Court award is enforceable or has become inoperative under Section 17A (and Section 19) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
- Whether a court can entertain a writ under Article 226 for enforcement of monetary benefits when a specific statutory remedy exists.
Legislation cited
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — s. 17A, 19, 33-C(1)
Subjects
- writ petition
- Industrial Disputes Act
- award enforceability
- back wages
- delay
- laches
- alternative statutory remedy
- reinstatement
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.24819 of 2013
======================================================
Kapileshwar Choudhary S/O Late Janardan Choudhary R/O Village
Basukibihari, P.S. Madhurapur In The District Of Madhubani
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar and Ors Government Of Bihar, Patna
2. Administrator, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Patna
3. Managing Director, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Patna
4. The District Magistrate, Patna
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ajay, Sr. Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 20-02-2026
1. The petitioner has filed the instant
application for the following relief:
“(I) To quash the office order
bearing order no. 144 dated 08.02.2008
issued under the signature of V. N. Jha,
Director Vigilance and Security (In-
Charge Chief Personnel) in the
department of Bihar sate road transport
department Govt. of Bihar Patna..
Whereby and where under it is further
directed that the back wages of the
petitioner shall not be paid.
(II) To direct the respondent
authority to pay the entire back wages
Patna High Court CWJC No.24819 of 2013 dt.20-02-2026
2/10
of the petitioner in view of order dated
22.8.2006 passed by Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Patna in reference case
no. 39/1995 with statutory interest over
the amount.
(III) Also to direct respondent
authority to provide all consequential
benefits of the petitioner in view of
above mentioned order.
(IV) Also any other relief/reliefs for
which petitioner is found to be entitled
in the eye of law.”
2. The case of the petitioner, as culled
out from the writ petition, is that he was initially
appointed as a Driver in the Bihar State Road
Transport Corporation on 20.06.1988. It is stated
that he discharged his duties sincerely and was
posted on the Patna–Darbhanga Deluxe Bus route.
According to the petitioner, during the course of
inspection, four passengers were found travelling
without ticket. A domestic enquiry was initiated
against him and he was suspended on 19.03.1990.
It is alleged that the enquiry was conducted in
violation of principles of natural justice and without
Patna High Court CWJC No.24819 of 2013 dt.20-02-2026
3/10
affording him adequate opportunity of hearing.
Ultimately, vide order dated 16.09.1991, he was
dismissed from service.
3. It is further stated that the petitioner
challenged the order of dismissal before the
Labour Court, Patna, which was registered as
Reference Case No. 39/1995. After adjudication by
award dated 22.08.2006, the Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Patna directed reinstatement of the
petitioner along with payment of full back wages
and other consequential benefits. It is the
grievance of the petitioner that though he was
reinstated to service pursuant to the award, vide
Office Order No. 144 dated 08.02.2008 but the
respondents denied payment of back wages.
According to him, such action is illegal and
amounts to non-compliance of the award passed
by the Labour Court. It is further submitted that
the petitioner has been working since his
reinstatement with sincerity and the denial of back
wages for nearly 15 years is wholly arbitrary and
unsustainable in law.
Patna High Court CWJC No.24819 of 2013 dt.20-02-2026
4/10
4. Per contra, the Learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondents has
opposed the writ petition. It is submitted that the
writ petition is hit by delay and laches. The cause
of action had arisen in the year 2006 and the
impugned office order was passed in the year
2008, whereas the petitioner has approached this
Court after several years without any plausible
explanation.
5. It is further submitted that the
petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy
under Section 33-C(1) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, for recovery of money, in terms of the
award, but the same has not been availed. Hence,
the writ petition is not maintainable.
6. The Learned counsel draws attention
towards Section 17A of the Industrial Disputes Act
which deals with enforceability of awards and
submitted that the award has become inoperative
by virtue of Section 19 of the Act. Section 17A of
the Industrial Disputes Act, reads as follows:
“17A. Commencement of
Patna High Court CWJC No.24819 of 2013 dt.20-02-2026
5/10
the award.—(1) An award (including an
arbitration award) shall become
enforceable on the expiry of thirty
days from the date of its publication
under section 17:
Provided that—
(a) if the appropriate
Government is of opinion, in any case
where the award has been given by a
Labour Court or Tribunal in relation to
an industrial dispute to which it is a
party; or
(b) if the Central
Government is of opinion, in any case
where the award has been given by a
National Tribunal, that it will be
inexpedient on public grounds
affecting national economy or social
justice to give effect to the whole or
any part of the award, the appropriate
Government, or as the case may be,
the Central Government may, by
notification in the Official Gazette,
declare that the award shall not
become enforceable on the expiry of
the said period of thirty days.
(2) Where any declaration
has been made in relation to an award
under the proviso to sub-section (1),
Patna High Court CWJC No.24819 of 2013 dt.20-02-2026
6/10
the appropriate Government or the
Central Government may, within
ninety days from the date of
publication of the award under section
17, make an order rejecting or
modifying the award, and shall, on the
first available opportunity, lay the
award together with a copy of the
order before the Legislature of the
State, if the order has been made by a
State Government, or before
Parliament, if the order has been made
by the Central Government.
(3) Where any award as
rejected or modified by an order made
under sub-section (2) is laid before the
Legislature of a State or before
Parliament, such award shall become
enforceable on the expiry of fifteen
days from the date on which it is so
laid; and where no order under sub-
section (2) is made in pursuance of a
declaration under the proviso to sub-
section (1), the award shall become
enforceable on the expiry of the period
of ninety days referred to in sub-
section (2).
(4) Subject to the
provisions of sub-section (1) and sub-
Patna High Court CWJC No.24819 of 2013 dt.20-02-2026
7/10
section (3) regarding the enforceability
of an award, the award shall come into
operation with effect from such date
as may be specified therein, but where
no date is so specified, it shall come
into operation on the date when the
award becomes enforceable under
sub-section (1) or sub- section (3), as
the case may be.]”
7. It is submitted that the petitioner
was a habitual offender and had earlier been
subjected to disciplinary proceedings. The
misconduct alleged against him was serious in
nature, involving breach of trust while discharging
duties as a driver of a commercial transport
corporation dealing with public revenue. It is
contended that the Labour Court erred in granting
reinstatement with full back wages and the
Corporation is running at a loss, and it cannot be
burdened with payment of back wages for nearly
17 years without any work. Therefore, the Learned
counsel for the respondents prayed to dismiss the
writ petition as it is devoid of merits.
8. Heard The Learned counsel for the
Patna High Court CWJC No.24819 of 2013 dt.20-02-2026
8/10
parties and perused the materials available on
record. The primary grievance of the petitioner is
against the office order dated 08.02.2008 whereby
back wages were denied despite the award dated
22.08.2006 passed by the Labour Court. However,
it is an admitted fact that the petitioner has
approached this Court after a considerable delay.
The cause of action, if any, arose in the year 2006
and the award was passed in the year 2008 and
the Writ application was preferred in the year
2013. No satisfactory explanation has been
provided by the petitioner for approaching this
Court after such a long period of time. Further, the
Industrial Disputes Act provides for a specific
mechanism under Section 33-C(1) for recovery of
money due under an award. The petitioner has not
availed the said statutory remedy. It is well settled
that where an efficacious alternative remedy is
available under a statute, this Court, in exercise of
its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, ordinarily does not entertain
such petition, specially when the disputed question
Patna High Court CWJC No.24819 of 2013 dt.20-02-2026
9/10
is relating to computation and enforceability of
monetary benefits.
9. This Court also finds that the
petitioner remained out of service for a substantial
period and serious allegations of misconduct had
been levelled against him. The Corporation has
specifically pleaded loss of confidence in the
petitioner and about the financial constraints.
These are matters which required adjudication
before the appropriate forum under the Industrial
Disputes Act.
10. The reliance placed by the
respondents on Section 17A of the Industrial
Disputes Act regarding enforceability of awards
further indicates that questions relating to
operation, enforceability and implementation of
the award are matters to be examined within the
statutory framework of the Act. These questions
cannot be examined in writ jurisdiction, particularly
when disputed facts are involved.
11. The counsel appearing on behalf of
the corporation submits that award of the Labour
Patna High Court CWJC No.24819 of 2013 dt.20-02-2026
10/10
Court which is the basis of petitioner’s claim is
inoperative as he cannot rely on such award after
expiry of prescribed period under the Act. Vide
order dated 06.01.2024, the petitioner was asked
to bring on record whether the award of Labour
Court was published or not. However, the
petitioner has failed to do so.
12. In view of the discussions made
hereinabove, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the writ petition is devoid of merits
and does not warrant interference under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.
13. Accordingly, the writ petition stands
dismissed.
14. Interlocutory Application(s), if any,
shall stands disposed of.
(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)
Spd/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 20.02.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.