Union (Utuc) vs Sampat Mal Jhanwar & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 2613 Cal

    20
17.04.2023
Ct. No. 32
   rrc


                                   MAT 647 of 2023
                                         with
                                 IA No. CAN 1 of 2023



                     [Baranagar Jute Factory PLC. Workers
                 Union (UTUC) Vs. Sampat Mal Jhanwar & Ors.]



                Mr. Kalyan Bandyopadhyay, Ld. Sr. Adv.
                Mr. Abhishek Halder
                Mr. Tamaghna Saha
                                      ..... For the appellant


                Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, Ld. Sr. Adv.
                Mr. Anirban Ray
                Mr. Ananta Kumar Shaw
                Mr. Anirudha Agarwalla
                Mr. Yasho Vardhan Kochar
                Ms. Priyanka Garain
                                     ..... For the respondent nos. 1 & 2

Mr. Shiv Chandra Prasad ..... For the Provident Fund Authority

The present application being CAN 1 of 2023 has

been filed praying for leave to prefer an appeal against an

order dated 5th April, 2023 passed in a writ petition being

WPA 7663 of 2023 and for stay of operation of the order

dated 5th April, 2023.

Mr. Bandyopadhyay, learned senior Counsel

appearing for the applicant/appellant, namely,

Baranagar Jute Factory Workers Union (UTUC) submits

that in connection with the writ petition being WPA 7663

of 2023 which was preferred by the writ petitioners

challenging, inter alia, attachment orders and

notices/orders dated 14th March, 2023, the applicant

herein has filed an intervention application. Without

considering the said application and without expressing

any prima facie opinion as regards legality of the

attachment orders, the learned Judge by the impugned

order granted liberty to the writ petitioners to withdraw

an amount of Rs.70,000,00/- (Rupees Seventy Lakhs).

He argues that an order under Section 7-A of the

Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous

Provisions Act, 1952 (in short, the said Act) is appealable

under Section 7-I of the said Act and as per Section 7-O

of the said Act, no appeal shall be entertained unless the

employer deposits 75% of the amount due. For non-

compliance of the order under Section 7-A of the said

Act, the attachment orders were rightly issued. Without

considering such jurisdictional issues, as urged and

without deciding the intervention application, the learned

Judge erred in law in passing the interim order.

Drawing our attention to the averments made in

paragraph 11 of the application, Mr. Bandyopadhyay

submits that after an interim order was passed in an

earlier writ petition being WPA 1849 of 2023, the writ

petitioners received an amount of Rs.1,56,16,417/- and

the said amount had been siphoned out by the writ

petitioners to their sister concern, namely, AXIS

Overseas Limited. In support of his arguments Mr.

Bandyopadhyay has placed reliance upon a judgment

delivered in the case of ´Baranagore Jute Factory PLC.

Mazdoor Sangh (BMS) and others Vs. Baranagore Jute

Factory PLC. And others' reported in (2017) 5 SCC 506.

Per contra, Mr. Mitra, learned senior counsel

appearing for the writ petitioners/respondent nos. 1 and

2 herein submits that the directions contained in the

order impugned had not prejudiced the applicant herein

in any manner whatsoever. The learned Court had only

granted liberty to the writ petitioners to withdraw an

amount of Rs.70 lakhs for the purpose of payment of

wages of the employees in the jute factory which is

having more than 2000 workers.

Mr. Mitra informs us that the intervention application

along with the writ petition has been fixed for hearing

before the learned single Judge tomorrow.

Mr. Mitra submits that the order impugned had not

prejudiced the applicant in any manner and as such he

is not a 'person aggrieved'. In support of his arguments

he has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered in the

case of 'Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar and

Others'.

In reply, Mr. Bandyopadhyay argues that the

applicant has suffered a legal grievance inasmuch as the

money which has been allowed to be withdrawn pertains

to provident fund dues of the workers and the judgment

in the case of Jasbhai Motibhai Desai (supra) has no

manner of application.

Records reveal that on 5th April, 2023, three writ

petitions along with the connected applications were

taken up for hearing by the learned single Judge. The

writ petition being WPA 7663 of 2023 was preferred

challenging, inter alia, attachment orders dated 14th

March, 2023 in which the appellant/applicant herein

had preferred an application for intervention. Similar

application for intervention had also been filed by the

applicant in the other writ petition being WPA 1849 of

2023. As regards the said applications, the learned

single Judge observed that the same are required to be

heard and the matters were made returnable for hearing

on 12th April, 2023.

From the order it appears that the learned Court

granted liberty to the writ petitioners to withdraw a sum

aggregating to Rs.70 lakhs from the bank account

maintained by the respondent nos. 3 to 9 on account of

wages payable to the workers, observing inter alia that

the factory was a running concern and the wages of the

workers are already overdue. In the said order it was

also observed that the directions issued would be without

prejudice to the rights and contentions of the Provident

Fund authorities as regards the quantum of current

provident fund contribution, as identified by the writ

petitioners in the affidavit, as filed.

We have been informed that pursuant to the

directions of the learned Court, the writ petitioners have

already filed an affidavit of compliance confirming

disbursement of the wages made in favour of the

workers.

In the said conspectus and as the learned Judge has

exercised discretion in favour of the writ petitioners after

detailing the reasons, no interference is called for in the

present appeal.

Accordingly, the application being CAN 1 of 2023 is

dismissed and consequently, the appeal being MAT 647

of 2023 also stands dismissed.

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

All parties shall act on the server copies of this order

duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)