M/S. Ludlow Jute & Specialities ... vs State Of West Bengal & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 6633 Cal

                  IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                 CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
                          APPELLATE SIDE

     PRESENT:

     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHIJIT GANGOPADHYAY


                            WPA 21635 of 2019

                     M/s. Ludlow Jute & Specialities Ltd.
                                  -Versus-
                        State of West Bengal & Ors.


     For the petitioner             :   Mr. Arunava Ghosh
                                        Mr. Partha Bhanja Chowdhury
                                        Mr. S. N. Singh
                                        Mr. Ravi Kumar Dubey

     For the Respondent No. 3           : Mr. Masum Ali Sarder

     For the State                  : Mr. Narayan Bhattacharya
                                       Ms. Sujata Ghosh

     Heard on                       :    09.12.2020, 23.12.2020,
                                         11.01.2021, 20.01.2021 &
                                          09.02.2021


     Judgment on                    :    24.12.2021


     Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J :.

1. This writ application has been filed challenging the order of the judge 3rd industrial Tribunal being Order No. 131 dated 17.9.2019. The employer is the writ petitioner.

A dispute was raised by the employee in the year 2005 which is till continuing.

2. The issues that were framed by the Deputy Secretary, Government of West Bengal, Labour Department by his order dated 22.11.2005 are as follows :

1. Whether the management is justified in terminating the services of Mustaq Ahmed by way of refusal of employment with effect from 8.10.02?

2. From which date the date of joining of the workman is to be counted?

3. What relief if any, is he entitled to?

Before the present writ application another writ application was filed by the employer whereunder they enjoyed order of stay of proceedings before the industrial tribunal for a long time. After the disposal of that said writ application the tribunal started proceeding.

3. After hearing parties this court felt it necessary to call for the records of the case from the tribunal which have arrived. I have perused the orders starting from order No. 1 dated 07.12.2005 to order No. 131 dated 17.09.2019. While perusing the orders passed by the tribunal from 2005 to 2019 I found that after the matter came back from the High Court after disposal of the writ application (i.e. the earlier writ application) the petitioner herein being the employer filed an application under Rule 20F of West Bengal Industrial Disputes Rules 1958. Said application (for fixation date and place final hearing) was not entertained by the tribunal. Thereafter the petitioner filed another application under Rule 20H (2) of the aforesaid Rules relating to preliminary issues.

That application of the petitioner was also rejected by the tribunal following the judgment of Supreme Court in DP Maheshwari -versus- Delhi Administration & Ors. reported in 1983 LLJ 425 (S.C.) and also following the order passed in the earlier writ application by this court.

4. In the said writ application being W.P. No. 20314(W) of 2006 the writ court directed the tribunal to take up the reference along with one issue i.e. "Whether the workman have abandoned appointment or refused to take up engagement/employment" and the court directed the tribunal to dispose of the matter by six months from the date of communication of the order if not earlier. The order was passed by the writ court on 07.02.2018.

5. The tribunal thereafter started proceeding with the matter and started taking evidence. Witness action started from 10.08.2018. The employee gave his evidence which was concluded and he was discharged. The witnesses (two witnesses) of the petitioner started adducing evidence from the 06.12.2018 and their evidence was closed on 12.04.2019 and witnesses were discharged after completion of their respected evidence.

6. It is found on perusal of the record produced that (from order No. 127 dated 28.06.2019) after 14 years from the initiation of the dispute case the petitioner after closing of their evidence filed an application for a direction on the Conciliation Officer/Assistant Labour Commission Uluberia to produce the conciliation file under which the order of reference dated 22.11.2005 was made. This application has been dismissed by the tribunal by the impugned order being order No. 131 dated

17.09.2019. This was an application under Rule 20E of the West Bengal Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958. Rule 20E is as follows:

"20E. Summoning and attendances of witnesses. - The Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court may at any stage of the proceedings.

either upon or without an application by any party and on such terms as may appear to the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court just, issue summonses to any person in Form D-4 either to give evidence or to produce documents or for both purposes on a specified date, time and place".

„At any stage‟ in the said Rules is to be understood in a reasonable manner. It will be wholly unreasonable if such an application for production of records is made after 14 years from the initiation of the dispute. The petitioner has not made out any case wherefrom it would be known that after 14 years they became aware about the conciliation proceedings. They were aware about it 14 years back that they wanted the production of record when the High Court directed to conclude the age old proceedings by six months. At this stage the petitioner expressed interest for production of conciliation records.

7. Such act of the petitioner is wholly ill-motived to drag the proceedings. What the petitioner could have done in last 14 years before the fag end of the proceeding, did it at the last stage. I hold that it is nothing but a step which is ill-motived.

8. In the said impugned order the tribunal had held that the case was at the fag end of trial. It further held that the company has

adduced two witnesses as per their prayer. The case was pending for further evidence by the company and at that stage on 28.06.2019 the company has filed the petition praying for the direction upon the Conciliation Officer to produce the conciliation file.

9. On perusal of the order and after hearing the parties and after going through the pleadings I find that the petitioner herein always tried to block the proceeding before the Industrial Tribunal. It took more than three years by filing petition after petition before the Tribunal to file the order of stay passed by the writ court. When the writ court disposed of the matter by giving direction to the Tribunal to hear out the case by six months and allowed the employer/company to frame an issue and directed the Tribunal to adjudicate on that issue also the petitioner started blocking the said proceeding before the Tribunal by filing one after another application first, by filing an application under Rule 20F of the West Bengal Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958 and then by filing Rule 20H of the same Rule. When the petitioner/company became unsuccessful in blocking the adjudication of the Industrial Disputes by the Tribunal it filed the application under Section 20E of the aforesaid Rules. It is noted that for last 14 years i.e. from 2005 till 27.06.2019 the petitioner/company never felt before that the Conciliation Officer‟s file was required to be produced to prove that any dispute was raised before the employer by the employee being the Respondent No. 3 herein. The employer had several opportunities in the last 14 years (2005 to 2019) to pray for production of that record. It became necessary for the employer when the High

Court (in the earlier writ application) directed to conclude the proceeding by 6 (Six) months or before this is an ill-degin.

10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after perusal of the records and the orders of last 14 years (2005 to 2019) passed by the Tribunal for which records were called for by this court, I find that the endeavour of the petitioner to stall the proceeding before the Industrial Tribunal is ill-deigned and ill- motived and it was without any basis of law.

11. Therefore, I dismiss the writ application by imposing a cost of Rs 5 Lakh upon the petitioner out of which 50% is to be paid to the Respondent No. 3 and the rest 50% is to be paid to the High Court Legal Services Authority by the petitioner within a period of 30 days from 3rd January, 2022.

The writ application is dismissed with costs as aforesaid.

The department is directed to send back the records of the case to the tribunal.

(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J)

Later: Learned Advocate for the petitioner prays for stay of operation of the order which is considered and rejected.

(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J)