Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
The Statesman Limited vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 8 August, 2022
Item No.5.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
HEARD ON: 08.08.2022
DELIVERED ON:08.08.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA
F.M.A. No.233 of 2022
With
I.A. No.CAN 1 of 2022
With
I.A. No.CAN 2 of 2022
The Statesman Limited.
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Appearance:-
Mr. Supriya Ranjan Saha,
Mr. Suman Kumar Mukherjee ..... for the appellant.
Mr. Anirban Kar ... for the respondent no.3/
workman
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)
Re: I.A. CAN 1 of 2022
1. This application has been filed to condone the delay of 120
days in filing the instant appeal.
2. We have heard Mr. Supriya Ranjan Saha, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant and Mr. Anirban Kar, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent no.3.
3. Though We are not fully convinced with the reasons given in
the affidavit filed in support of the application, yet we
exercise discretion as the learned Advocates for the parties
request that the appeal itself be heard and disposed of and only
for such reason, the delay is condoned and the application is
allowed.
4. Accordingly, the delay in filing the instant appeal is
condoned.
5. The application being I.A. CAN 1 of 2022 is allowed.
Re: F.M.A. No.233 of 2022
6. This intra-Court appeal is directed against an interim
order dated 21st April, 2021 passed in W.P.A. 25848 of 2018. In
the said writ petition, the appellant / management had
challenged the final order passed in Case No. Comp. 10 of 2015
filed under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
before the First Labour Court, Kolkata dated 19 th May, 2016. By
the said order, the Labour Court directed the appellant /
management to pay the respondent/workman a sum of Rs.8,60,786/-
within a time frame. The order was put to execution by
approaching the 16th Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta in Case
No.CS - 71130 of 2017. It appears that when an arrest warrant
was issued and attachment of the property of the management was
made, the writ petition was filed challenging the said order
passed by the Labour Court computing the wages payable.
7. The Learned Single Bench by way of the impugned order had
directed payment of Rs.5 lakhs to the respondent / workman
within a time frame. The learned Writ Court also made it clear
that the writ application be heard for the rest of the amount
in the month of June, 2021. The management is aggrieved by such
direction.
8. It is submitted by the learned Advocate appearing for the
appellant that the respondent / workman was dismissed from
service and since a dispute was pending at the relevant time,
the approval of the competent authority had to be obtained and
accordingly, an application was filed, which was rejected and
challenging the said order the appellant / management has filed
W.P.A No.25848 of 2018, which is pending before this Court. It
is further submitted that in the said writ petition, the
respondent / workman filed an application under Section 17B of
the Act and an order was passed and 50% of the last drawn wages
had been disbursed with the respondent / workman for the period
ordered by the Court. It is submitted that it is only at that
stage, they came to be aware of the ex parte order passed by the
First Labour Court dated 19th May, 2016 and the writ petition was
filed.
9. The learned Single Bench has noted that though the order
was passed on 19th May, 2016 by the Labour Court, the writ
petition was filed only on 18th December, 2018.
10. It is pointed out by the Learned Advocate for the
respondent / workman that even in the writ petition,
inconsistent stand has been taken by the appellant / management
and in this regard, he has drawn our attention to paragraph 11
of the writ application wherein the appellant / management would
state that no notice was served on the company in the
proceedings before the Labour Court filed under Section 33C (2)
of the Act. Simultaneously, it is stated that the Law Officer
of the company, who was dealing with all the labour cases
stopped attending the Labour Court and may be due to this
reason, the matter was heard ex parte. Thus, it is pointed out
by the Learned Advocate for the respondent that this
inconsistent stand taken by the management is fatal to their
case.
11. In any event, we note that the Labour Court has recorded in
its order dated 19th May, 2016 that in spite of service of
summons, management did not appear and contest the matter.
Thus, in our view, considering the facts and circumstances of
the case, the learned Single Bench has exercised its discretion
and directed payment of Rs.5 lakhs and the writ application is
still pending.
12. Thus, we find that there is no error in exercise of
discretion by the learned Single Bench and consequently, the
order impugned does not call for any interference. Accordingly,
the writ appeal and the connected application being I.A. No.CAN
2 of 2022 are dismissed with a direction upon the appellant /
management to comply with the direction issued by the learned
Writ Court in its order dated 21 st April, 2021 not later than 22nd
August, 2022 and file a compliance report before the learned
Writ Court in this regard.
13. There shall be no order as to costs.
14. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied
for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously upon compliance
of all legal formalities.
(T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J)
I agree,
(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
NAREN/PALLAB(AR.C)
