Executive Engineer, Ph. Ed. Vs. Govind Ram

.....was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - 1 he labour court relied upon the evidence, oral as well as documentary, produced by the employee including a certificate of the assistant engineer that he is working as clerk and his work is satisfactory. 4. a low paid employee, like the present respondent, could not have challenged the high ranking officers and insisted for written order. the amount of cost will be realised from the officer of the department concerned, who permitted filing of such frivolous writ petition, so that in future the poor workmen are not dragged in such frivolous cases and the valuable time of the courts is also saved......on 29th may. 1974.3. to add insult to injury, the writ petition has been filed against that order by the state functionaries. 1 he labour court relied upon the evidence, oral as well as documentary, produced by the employee including a certificate of the assistant engineer that he is working as clerk and his work is satisfactory. the evidence could not be rebutted and the state withheld production of ledger, summoned by the employee to prove that he made entries. inspite of all this, it is contended that there is no proof that be was working as clerk because, there is no written order.4. a low paid employee, like the present respondent, could not have challenged the high ranking officers and insisted for written order. if this amount of salary is not paid to him, it would be a serious economic exploitation of a low paid employee.5. i am convinced that there is no case warranting interference under article 26 of the constitution. in fact, in such a case, the state functionaries should not have filed any writ petition. to drag a low paid employee to the high court, as mentioned above, is a serious atrocity, on social justice to which the state is committed under the constitution of india.6. it is also avoidable litigation and comes in the category of frivolous and vexatious writ petition.7. it is unbecoming of any state to drag its own employees first to labour court by non-payment of real salary and then to add insult to injury, to call him to the high court and there too for such a petty amount and there again without any tenable or valid defence.8. consequently, the writ petition is dismissed with costs of rs. 500/- to the respondent. the amount of cost will be realised from the officer of the department concerned, who permitted filing of such frivolous writ petition, so that in future the poor workmen are not dragged in such frivolous cases and the valuable time of the courts is also saved.