Sri Bikky vs Calcutta Electric Supply ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4025 Cal

    10
06.07.2022
 Ct. No.23
     pg.
                      IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                     CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
                              APPELLATE SIDE

                                WPA 5803 of 2022

                                    Sri Bikky
                                       Vs.
               Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Limited & Anr.



                    Mr. Soumya Majumdar
                    Mr. Debanjan Mukherjee
                               ... For the respondents/CESC

The petitioner sought an adjournment on 13th

June, 2022 to address this Court on the point of

maintainability of the writ petition taken on behalf of the

employer - Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Limited

(in short "CESC Limited"). The matter again appeared on

22nd June, 2022 when no one appeared in support of the

writ petition. Even today, no one appears in support of the

writ petition. No adjournment is sought for. No one has

also applied to participate in the proceedings through

virtual mode.

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the

matter is taken up in the absence of the petitioner on the

point of maintainability.

Learned advocate for CESC Limited cites a

judgment reported in 2003 (3) CHN 357 (Mithai Lal Passi

v. CESC Limited & Ors.) wherein it has been categorically

held that no writ petition lies against CESC Limited with

regard to a service related dispute between itself and its

employee. This view has been accepted in a judgment and

order dated 12th January, 2009 passed in WP 17843 (W) of

2008 (Argha Mukherjee v. CESC Limited & Anr.). Apart

from these two judgments, I find that the writ petition is

not maintainable in view of the ratio laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in (2003)

10 SCC 733 (Federal Bank Limited v. Sagar Thomas &

Ors.).

The petitioner's father was an employee of CESC

Limited who died-in-harness on 15th July, 2002. The

petitioner was a minor at that point of time. The petitioner

is seeking compassionate appointment upon attaining

majority. The relief claimed by the writ petitioner does not

come within the exceptions laid down in Sagar Thomas

(supra).

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ

petition is dismissed as not maintainable.

Dismissal of this writ petition, however, will not

prevent the writ petitioner from seeking redressal of his

grievances in an appropriate forum on the selfsame cause,

if permissible in law.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if

applied for, be given to the parties, upon compliance of

necessary formalities.

(Arindam Mukherjee, J.)