Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
In a significant ruling, the Patna High Court dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) filed by a private pharmacy college challenging the Labour Court’s direction to pay salary arrears to a former clerical employee. This decision reaffirms the rights of non-teaching staff in private educational institutions to claim unpaid salaries through the mechanism of the Industrial Disputes Act.
The matter arose when the aggrieved person, a clerk employed by the pharmacy college since 1980, approached the Labour Court under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He claimed unpaid salary arrears for multiple periods between 1990 and 2003, totaling Rs. 2,00,755.10. Despite repeated assurances by the college authorities, the dues remained unpaid, prompting legal action.
Initially, the Labour Court proceeded ex parte as the college failed to actively participate despite being given multiple opportunities, including recalls of earlier ex parte orders. When the college failed again to file its response or pay the nominal cost imposed for delay, the Labour Court ruled in favor of the employee based on the documents and evidence he presented, including salary charts and acquittance rolls.
The college later challenged the Labour Court’s decision through a writ petition, which was dismissed for non-prosecution. Finally, in the LPA before the Division Bench, the college contended that it was not an “industry” under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act and that the clerk did not qualify as a “workman” under Section 2(s). However, the Court rejected this argument, relying on the Supreme Court’s precedent in Raj Kumar v. Director of Education (2016) 6 SCC 541, which held that non-teaching staff in educational institutions fall within the definition of “workman,” and educational institutions themselves qualify as “industries” for the purposes of the Act.
The High Court noted that the employee had validly proved his claims with documentary evidence and personal testimony, while the college repeatedly defaulted on procedural compliance. Thus, the appeal was found to be without merit and was dismissed, affirming the earlier decisions.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
This judgment is crucial for non-teaching staff employed in private educational institutions across Bihar and beyond. It affirms their right to seek legal remedies for unpaid salaries under the Industrial Disputes Act. The case also sends a strong message to private educational bodies that they cannot evade their financial obligations by exploiting procedural loopholes or remaining absent from proceedings.
For the government, this ruling underscores the importance of ensuring compliance with labor laws in the education sector, particularly in institutions that collect substantial fees and engage in quasi-commercial activities.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision
- Whether a private educational institution qualifies as an “industry” under the Industrial Disputes Act?
- Yes, based on existing Supreme Court precedent.
- Whether a clerical employee in such an institution is a “workman”?
- Yes, non-teaching staff are covered under the definition.
- Was the Labour Court justified in proceeding ex parte and awarding salary arrears?
- Yes, the college was given multiple chances but failed to participate meaningfully.
- Was the proceeding under Section 33(C)(2) valid without reference under Section 10?
- Yes, since the entitlement was established and not under dispute.
Judgments Referred by Parties
- Kishore Kumar Ambashtha & Ors. v. State of Bihar – 2016 (4) PLJR 929
- M/s Arun Chemicals Industries v. The Certificate Officer – 2009 (1) PLJR 682
- Prem Kumar Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar – 2009 (3) PLJR 131
Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court
- Raj Kumar v. Director of Education & Ors. – (2016) 6 SCC 541
Case Title
Bihar College of Pharmacy v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Case Number
LPA No. 643 of 2017 in CWJC No. 15055 of 2012
Citation(s)
2020 (1) PLJR 181
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shivaji Pandey
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
Mr. Arun Kumar — For the Appellant
Mr. Ajay Kumar Rastogi (AAG-10) — For the Respondents
Link to Judgment
https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MyM2NDMjMjAxNyMxI04=-BWSsCdvXIkw=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
