Mahendra Mishra vs M/S. Gluconate Health Limited & ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 5333 Cal

October 4, 2021
   ARDR

          (165)
                                     WPA 13798 of 2021

                                     Mahendra Mishra
                                            Vs.
                            M/s. Gluconate Health Limited & ors.

                  Mr. R.K. Jaiswal,
                  Mr. M. K. Kundu,
                  Mr. N. P. Pradhan,
                                                      ...for the petitioner.
                  Mr.   Jayanta Dasgupta,
                  Mr.   Balaram Patra,
                  Mr.   Ritesh Maith,
                  Mr.   Shib Sankar Roy,
                                               ...for the respondent no. 1.

Mr. Susovan Sengupta, Mr. Manas Kumar Sadhu, ...for the State.

Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner be

taken on record.

The allegation of the petitioner is that he was a

regular permanent employee under the respondent

no.1 and was posted in the head office of the

authority. By an order dated 9th June, 1994 the

authority transferred the petitioner to its factory with

effect from 13th June, 1994 on existing terms and

conditions of his service. The petitioner complains that

after being transferred to the factory, he was deprived

of his entitlements which were admissible to him right

from the time he was posted in the head office. The

petitioner filed a writ petition which was disposed of by

a coordinate Bench of this Court on 8 th July, 1997.

The grievance of the petitioner as contained in the

present writ petition was also the subject matter of the

earlier writ petition and the matter was decided on

merits by the coordinate Bench. The said order not

being complied with by the authority, the petitioner

took out a contempt petition which was dismissed by

the same coordinate Bench by an order dated 27 th

March, 1998. The petitioner thereafter approached the

1st Labour Court, Calcutta under Section 33-C(2) of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for computation of

the benefits that he was entitled to. By an order dated

31st October, 2017 the learned Labour Court dismissed

the application of the petitioner by quoting the

observations of the coordinate Bench of this Court in

the judgment dated 8th July, 1997 and observed that

the Hon'ble Court by order dated 27th March, 1998

had already determined the issues involved in the case

before it. The petitioner thereafter approached this

court in the present writ petition.

Referring to Section 33-C (2) of the Act of 1947,

learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

the Labour Court erred in holding that the Court had

no jurisdiction to decide the question of entitlement.

Learned counsel has referred to a decision of an

Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in FMA No. 896

of 2019 dated 19th February, 2021, wherein it has

been observed by the Hon'ble Division Bench that

Section 33-C(3) of the Act of 1947 empowers the

Labour Court to adjudicate upon any dues of the

employer to the employees.

Refuting the submissions made on behalf of the

petitioner, learned counsel for the first respondent has

submitted that there has been inordinate delay in

filing the present writ petition. Order impugned was

passed on 31st October, 2017 and the writ petition was

filed only in 2021. Learned counsel has further

submitted that the question of entitlement of the

employee cannot be gone into by the Labour Court

under Section 33-C (2) of the Act of 1947.

I have heard the submissions made on behalf of

the parties.

It is not in dispute that the entire case made out

by the petitioner in the present writ petition was also

the subject matter of the earlier writ petition and a

coordinate Bench of this Court disposed of the said

writ petition by an order dated 8 th July, 1997 wherein

the entire issue has been dealt with on merits. The

contempt application filed by the petitioner was

dismissed by the said coordinate Bench on merits. The

same issue was reagitated before the learned Labour

Court and the Court had no option but to refer to the

judgment of the coordinate Bench and dismiss the

application of the petitioner. No appeal was preferred

by the petitioner against the order of the coordinate

Bench of this Court.

Having considered the facts and circumstances

of the case and material on record, this Court is of the

view that as the subject matter of the present writ

petition has already been decided on merits by a

coordinate Bench of this Court earlier, this Court

cannot sit in appeal over the said order.

The prayers in the present writ petition having

already been dealt with, no further remedy lies in the

present writ petition and the petition is liable to be

dismissed.

Accordingly, WPA 13798 of 2021 be dismissed.

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Since no affidavits are invited, the allegations

contained in the petition are deemed not to be

admitted.

Urgent certified website copy of this order, if

applied for, be furnished to the parties on usual

undertakings.

(Suvra Ghosh, J.)