2025:JHHC:24157 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(L) No. 5756 of 2022 Deo Mohan Tiwari, aged about 46 years, son of Late Madan Mohan Tiwari, resident of Pakuria, P.O. Pakuria, P.S. Pakur, District Pakur ... … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. Frontline (NCR) Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. having its office at 301, 3rd Floor, Patna Super Market, Frazer Road, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Patna, District Patna, State Bihar 2. Bharti Infratel Limited, having its office at Aravali Crescent 1-Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Phase-11, P.O. & P.S. Vasant Kunj, National Capital Region, New Delhi 110070 3. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Deoghar having its office at Deoghar, P.O. + P.S. + District-Deoghar … … Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. Jasvinder Mazumdar, Advocate Ms. Neeharika Mazumdar, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Mishra, Advocate Mr. Harsh Preet Singh, Advocate -------- Order No. 8/Dated: 18th August 2025 The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs: “1That in this writ petition, the Petitioner prays for issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s), particularly for calling for the records pertaining to JSE Case No. 03 of 2014 and thereafter passing the following orders:- “(a) In the nature of certiorari for setting aside the Judgment dated 06.07.2022 passed by learned Presiding Office, Labour Court, Deoghar in JSE Case No. 03 of 2014 (Annexure-2). (b) Upon quashing the aforesaid Judgment for an order directing the respondents management to reinstate the petitioner u/s 26(5)(b) of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, 1953 (for short BSE Act) with all consequential benefits; And/or For issuance of any other appropriate writ(s) or direction(s) or order(s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in view of the facts & circumstances of the case for doing conscionable justice to the Petitioner.” 2. After going through the Award, it appears that the learned Labour Court after referring several judgments has held that the case of the petitioner does not come under the purview of BSE Act and it comes under 2025:JHHC:24157 2 the purview of Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner has averred of getting less payment than the minimum wages and non-payment of wages for four months. Less payment than the minimum wages is subject matter of Minimum Wages Act and non-payment of wages is subject matter of Payment of Wages Act. 3. After going through the impugned Award it further appears that oral evidence was taken. The O.P No. 1 has deposed in his examination-in-chief that the present case is not the subject matter of BSE Act; rather the Tower operates on electricity and generator and produces wave which is received through mobile phone and consequently it comes under the category of Industry. This witness has not been cross-examined on his such evidence by the petitioner and accordingly his evidence remained intact and the Labour Court has held in paragraph no. 14 of the Award as under: “14. There is no dispute that the O.P. No.2 is a Company and provides infrastructure services to various Telecom Companies and the O.P. No.1 is in a business of providing business solution to its client in India including the O.P. No.2. The petitioner has averred to have employed by the O.P. No.1 at the Cellular Tower of the O.P No.2. So, the O.P No.2 who is in the business of providing telecom services and the O.P. No.1 who provides business solution to the O.P. No.2 will fall under the entry no.4 of the BSE Act and as such both are beyond the purview of the application of the BSE Act. In the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd vs State Of Bihar & Anr (Cr.Misc. No. 29257 of 2013) decided on 10th October, 2017 the Hon'ble Patna High Court pleased to hold that "in view of the aforesaid discussion and finding it has to be held that the petitioner-company, in view of nature of its business and operations in Bihar, is entitled to the benefit of the entry no. 4 of Schedule-1 of the Act and is exempted from the provisions of the Act by virtue of Section 4(2) of the Act which provides for exceptions".” 4. Learned Labour Court has further relied upon various judgments including one rendered in the case of “General Manager Telecom Vs. S. Srinivasa Rao and Ors.”1 and held as under: “18. In the light of above discussions and material available on the record it is held that the case of the petitioner does not come under the purview of the BSE Act and it comes under the purview of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner has averred of getting less payment than the minimum wages and non- payment of wages for four months. Less payment than the minimum wages is subject matter of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and non-payment of wages is subject matter of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 as well. It is also held that present case of the petitioner filed under the provision of the BSE Act is not maintainable at all. Both the issues are answered in the above terms.” 1 (1997) 8 SCC 767 2025:JHHC:24157 3 5. Relying upon the basic issue that the petitioner does not come under the purview of BSE Act; rather it comes under Section 4(2) of the Act which provides for exceptions and will come under the purview of I.D. Act, the relief was not granted to the petitioner. 6. I do not find any error in the Judgment/Award passed by the learned Labour Court. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands disposed of without any interference. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to raise the dispute with regard to salary before the Assistant Labour Commissioner in accordance with law who shall decide the issue. 7. Pending I.As., if any, also stands disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Amit