Contractual Employees ... vs Hindustan Steelworks ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 6210 Cal

    08
08.12.2021
 Ct. No.23
    (NB)
                           IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                          CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
                                    APPELLATE SIDE


                                     WPA 18818 of 2021


                      Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited
                         Contractual Employees Association
                                         Vs.
                   Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited & Ors.


                        Mr. Kartik Lal Yadav,
                        Mr. Siddhartha Banerjee,
                        Ms. Trishita Bera.
                                            ... for the petitioner.

                        Mr. Ranjay De,
                        Mr. Basabjit Banerjee.
                                            ...for the respondent nos.1&2.

Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on record.

The petitioner is a registered trade union of Hindustan

Steelworks Construction Limited which is now a subsidiary of

National Buildings Construction Company (NBCC), India.

The petitioner says that the employer is not adhering to

the terms of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 14 th August,

2018. The petitioner is seeking regularisation of the contractual

employees and also the stay on the employer from shifting the

office from Hastings, Kolkata to NBCC Square at Rajarhat,

Kolkata.

The respondents have raised a point as to the

maintainability of the writ petition and have cited a judgment

reported in 2019(5) SCALE (Sunil Kumar Biswas Vs.

Ordinance Factory Board & Ors.): 2019(15) SCC 617. Relying

upon paragraphs 9 and 11 of the said judgment, the respondents

say that the issues involving in this writ petition as raised by the

petitioner requires to be adjudicated on facts and the evidence.

The competent Government Authority is, therefor, the appropriate

forum Writ Court, therefor, is not the proper forum for adjudicating

such issues.

Countering such argument, the petitioner has relied upon

a single Bench judgment of the High Court Of Judicature,

Punjab and Haryana reported in 1995(ii) L.L.N. 435 (Jagdish

Chand and the State of Haryana). Relying upon such judgment,

the petitioner says that the remedy available to the petitioner

under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is neither

efficacious nor an alternative remedy and the petitioner cannot

ventilate all its grievances before the appropriate government.

After hearing the parties and considering the materials

on record and the judgments cited at the Bar, it appears to me

that the issues raised by the petitioner are so intrinsically

connected that it cannot be said at this stage that this Court

absolutely lacks the jurisdiction. This issue can be gone into

along with others only at the final hearing after affidavits are

called for. I am also not inclined to pass any interim order at this

stage in view of the jurisdictional issue involved in the matter

which again as observed cannot be finally adjudicated at this

stage.

Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed within six weeks from

date. Reply, if any thereto, may be filed within three weeks

thereafter.

Liberty to mention for inclusion in the list under the

heading 'Hearing' after expiry of twelve weeks.

(Arindam Mukherjee, J.)