Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
The Assembly Of God Church vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 22 March, 2021
22. 03 . 2021
W
BP WPA 7392 of 2021
Sl. 13
(Via Video Conference)
The Assembly of God Church
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Jayanta Dasgupta
Mr. Balaram Patra
Mr. Ritesh Maity
..for the petitioner.
Mr. Susanta Pal
Mr. Ananda Dulal Sarkar
..for the State.
Mr. Sourav Chatterjee
..for the respondent-union.
Affidavit of service filed in court today be kept on
record.
This application has been filed challenging one
reference made by the Government of West Bengal
dated 1st July, 2015 wherein the first issue was as
follows :-
"1. Whether the non-payment of V.D.A. to the
non-school workmen of the Management with effect
from 01-01-1997 & violation of Section 9A of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are justified;"
Subsequently by issuing one corrigendum dated
12th February, 2021 the following has been notified:-
"Please read "April, 1998" instead of "01-01-
1997" in the first and the second line of the ISSUE(S)
No.1 of the last para of this Department's order quoted
above."
Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that
it is prejudiced because of such corrigendum issued by
the Government of West Bengal as because after six
years the corrigendum has been made and the period
has been changed from 1st January, 1997 to April
1998. He also raises the question that the earlier issue
cannot be altered by using the corrigendum and it can
only be altered if there is any printing mistake which is
not the case here. The petitioner considers it as
withdrawal and supersession of the earlier reference.
Learned advocate for the respondent union
submits that it was an inadvertent mistake which has
been corrected and at any point of time the mistake can
be corrected and there is no question of prejudice of
any of the parties for this corrigendum.
Learned advocate for the State supports the
submission made by the respondent union and also
adds that there is no limitation as to making any
corrigendum to the reference.
In respect of the question of court as to how the
petitioner is prejudiced by such corrigendum, learned
advocate for the petitioner submits that the
corrigendum is much delayed and the matter is in the
argument stage and at this stage if any corrigendum is
made then they will suffer.
I do not find any justification of such objection on
the ground of prejudice because it is not that by way of
corrigendum, a back date has been given for which
fresh facts are to be introduced, fresh evidences are to
be adduced and arguments are to be made by both the
parties including the fresh facts and evidences.
Learned advocate further submits that by not
giving any hearing before issuing the corrigendum
principles of natural justice has been violated. It is also
not accepted by me in view of the judgment delivered by
the Supreme Court in Asok Kumar Sonkar -vs- Union
of India & Ors. reported in (2007) 4 SCC 54 wherein,
inter alia, it has been held that it (principle of audi
alteram partem) may not be applied unless a prejudice
is shown. Here no prejudice is shown to my
satisfaction. It would have been prejudicial if a date
anterior to 1st January, 1998 was given by the
corrigendum as in that case new facts were required to
be introduced if necessary and new evidences would
have to be adduced if situation so demanded and the
argument would have to be made anew covering the
newly introduced facts and evidences. In the present
case as the period amended by corrigendum in shorter
than the earlier period and within the earlier period
such situation will not arise.
For the reasons as aforesaid, I do not find any
merit in this application and the same is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if
applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.
(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J. )
Rul
