The Bihar State Road Transport CorporationversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                    Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4526 of 2016
     ======================================================
     The Bihar State Road Transport Corporation through the Administrator,
     Birchand Patel Marg, Patna

                                                                ... ... Petitioner/s
                                        Versus

1.   The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Transport Department, Bihar,
     Patna.
2.   The Presiding officer, Labour Court, Patna
3.1. Nitu Singh D/o late Shyam Nandan Singh Resident of Village- Jahangirpur,
     P.O. Tehwara, District-Muzaffarpur.

                                               ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s   :       Mr. P.K. Verma, Senior Advocate
                                    Mr.Lakshmi Kant Tiwary, Advocate
                                    Mr. Nitesh Kumar, Advocate
     For the State          :        Mr. Yogendra Pd. Sinha, AAG 7
                                     Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sinha, AC to AAG 7
     For the Respondent No. 3.1    : None
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
                                  ORAL JUDGMENT
      Date : 15-05-2026
                Heard Mr. P. K. Verma, learned Senior Counsel,

      assisted by Mr. Lakshmi Kant Tiwary and Mr. Nitesh Kumar,

      learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and Mr.

      Yogendra Pd. Sinha, AAG-7, assisted by Mr. Rajeev Kumar

      Sinha, AC to AAG-7, appearing for the State. However, despite

      repeated calls, none appeared on behalf of Respondent No. 3.1,

      though service has already been held to be valid vide Order No.

      14 dated 15.04.2026.

                     2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits

      that the present writ petition has been filed challenging the order
Patna High Court CWJC No.4526 of 2016 dt.15-05-2026
                                           2/7




         dated 30.11.2011 passed in Reference Case No. 17 of 2003 by

         the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patna. Learned Senior

         Counsel submits that a very limited question is involved in the

         present writ petition. He submits that, from the reference itself,

         it becomes crystal clear that Reference Case No. 17 of 2003 was

         initiated for adjudication of the following issue: “Whether

         termination of services of Shri Shyamnandan Singh, workman,

         by the Administrator, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation,

         Patna, is justified? If not, what relief is he entitled to?”

                     3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further

         submits that the date of termination of the said workman,

         namely, Shyamnandan Singh, was 12.05.2001 and the reference

         notification was issued vide Notification No. 7/Shram-D-110-

         11/02 L&E-30, Patna dated 03.02.2003. The matter was referred

         under the Industrial Disputes Act to the Labour Court for

         adjudication. Learned Senior Counsel categorically submits that

         it has been specifically acknowledged in Paragraph 5 of the

         impugned order that the management authority had filed its

         written statement before the Court and thereafter, at some stage,

         stopped pursuing the case, as a result of which the proceeding

         was directed to proceed ex parte against the management vide

         order dated 20.08.2008.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4526 of 2016 dt.15-05-2026
                                           3/7




                     4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further

         submits, while explaining the circumstances under which the

         impugned order passed by the Presiding Officer is without

         jurisdiction, that on the date the said order was passed, the cause

         of action itself was no longer in existence. He submits that the

         termination order dated 12.05.2001 had already been set aside

         by the BSRTC (petitioner) and the services of the workman,

         Shyamnandan Singh, had been treated as continuous from

         12.05.2001, i.e., the date of termination, till 31.07.2004, i.e., the

         date of superannuation. Learned Senior Counsel further submits

         that the retiral benefits have already been paid to the workman

         and only the back wages were not paid. Counsel submits that the

         decision of the management accepting his joining after setting

         aside the dismissal order dated 12.05.2001 and treating his

         service as continuous, while denying back wages for the period

         he had not worked, was never challenged before any authority

         and, therefore, attained finality. However, this aspect was not

         considered by the Labour Court.

                     5. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the

         final order was passed on 30.11.2011, whereas the termination

         order, in respect of which the reference had been initiated, had

         already ceased to exist on 11.04.2008. Therefore, he submits
Patna High Court CWJC No.4526 of 2016 dt.15-05-2026
                                           4/7




         that the Labour Court passed an order in relation to a non-

         existent cause of action on the date of the final decision. He

         accordingly submits that the order passed by the Presiding

         Officer, Labour Court is bad in law, without jurisdiction, and has

         been passed despite there being no surviving cause of action on

         the date of its pronouncement.

                     6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State

         submits that whatever has been argued by the learned Senior

         Counsel appearing for the BSRTC has been adopted by him

         andhe fully supports the said submissions.

                     7. Respondent No. 3, namely the workman in whose

         favour the impugned order has been passed, is no more. Notices

         were issued to his daughter, which were received by his cousin,

         but despite lapse of more than 30 days, no one has appeared

         before this Court on behalf of Respondent No. 3(i). This Court,

         vide order dated 15.04.2026, has already treated the service

         upon Respondent No. 3 as valid.

                     8. With a view to decide the issue, which is technical

         in nature, this Court is of the opinion that only one question is

         involved, namely, whether the Labour Court was competent to

         pass an award on a reference when the very question framed in

         the reference had become non-existent.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4526 of 2016 dt.15-05-2026
                                           5/7




                     9. For the purpose of answering the said issue, this

         Court deems it appropriate to advert to the fundamental

         principles governing adjudication under the Industrial Disputes

         Act. In India, adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act

         follows the statutory mechanism whereby a workman has a right

         to approach the Labour Authority, whether of the State or the

         Central Government, as the case may be. Upon conciliation

         proceedings being conducted in presence of both parties, if no

         settlement is arrived at, the dispute is referred by the appropriate

         Government for adjudication.

                     10. In the present case, the matter was referred by the

         State Government and the question for adjudication was framed

         by the Governor vide Notification No. 7/Shram-D-110-11/02

         L&E-30, Patna dated 03.02.2003, whereby the matter was

         referred to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patna. The

         Presiding Officer registered the same as Reference Case No. 17

         of 2003 for adjudication.

                     11. From the records and particularly Paragraph 9 of

         the impugned award, it transpires that the very issue under

         reference, namely whether the termination dated 12.05.2001

         was justified, had become non-existent on 11.04.2008, inasmuch

         as the termination order itself had already been set aside and the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4526 of 2016 dt.15-05-2026
                                           6/7




         service of the workman had been restored. The workman had

         accepted such reinstatement, subsequently superannuated on

         31.07.2004, and also received his retiral benefits.

                     12. From such materials available on record, it clearly

         transpires to this Court that the very cause of action which

         formed the basis of the reference and adjudication no longer

         survived. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that

         once the cause of action itself had become non-existent, no

         adjudication ought to have been undertaken. More particularly,

         no amendment had ever been sought in the pleadings claiming

         any alternative relief, as is permissible in civil proceedings.

                     13. Adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act is

         also required to be guided by the principles analogous to those

         contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as contemplated

         under Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

         Accordingly, this Court is of the firm opinion that in absence of

         a surviving cause of action, there remained no occasion for

         adjudication. However, ignoring the aforesaid legal position, the

         Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patna proceeded to adjudicate

         the dispute and passed the impugned award on a reference

         which had already become non-existent on the date of the final

         order.
             Patna High Court CWJC No.4526 of 2016 dt.15-05-2026
                                                        7/7




                                  14. Hence, the issue is answered in favour of the

                      petitioner and against the respondents. Consequently, the

                      award/order dated 30.11.2011 passed in Reference Case No. 17

                      of 2003 by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patna is held to

                      be bad in law and is accordingly set aside.


                                                                   (Dr. Anshuman, J)

Ashwini/Manshi
AFR/NAFR                AFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          18.05.2026
Transmission Date       NA