Calcutta High Court
Bidhu Bhusan Sarkar vs State Of West Bengal And Ors on 5 December, 2023
Author: Rajasekhar Mantha
Bench: Rajasekhar Mantha
OD-14 ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
WPO/2875/2022
IA NO: GA/1/2022
BIDHU BHUSAN SARKAR
VS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE RAJASEKHAR MANTHA
Date : 5th December, 2023.
Appearance :
Mr. Bidhu Bhusan Sarkar
... in person.
Mr. Susanta Pal, Adv.
Mr. P. Basu, Adv.
... for respondent no.3.
The Court: 1. The subject matter of challenge is a final order
dated 26th December, 2019 passed by the learned Judge, First Labour
Court at Kolkata under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the management had entered
into a Memorandum of Settlement dated 9th October 2019, with the
Chowringhee unit branch office and the main branch at Kolkata allowing
certain benefits to its employees including workmen. Similar
memoranda of agreement were entered into separately with the
employees of other units of the company at Asansol, Delhi and Mumbai.
3. Admittedly, no formal settlement was entered into with the
employees of the Behala unit at Kolkata. The petitioner was an employee
of Behala unit. He was dismissed from service after disciplinary
proceedings sometime in the year 1999. The order of dismissal dated
07.06.1999 came to be challenged under Section 33(2)(b) of the
Industrial Disputes Act and was rejected. There are further proceedings
pending in respect of the order of dismissal taken out by the petitioner.
The same are not relevant to the subject matter of the instant
proceeding.
4. It appears to this Court from the records of the writ petition
that the petitioner has claimed a third retirement benefit to the tune of
Rs.3,20,000/- together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from
June, 2024 till realization. Such claim is based on the aforesaid MoS
dated 9th October 2019. The Tribunal received evidence both oral and
documentary evidence from the writ petitioner as well as the employer
the third respondent herein. Examination and cross-examination
occurred. The impugned order was passed after a proper trial on
evidence.
5. Based on the evidence had came on record the Tribunal found
that the memorandum of settlement did not cover the companies
employees located at Behala. The entire evidence on record was
discussed in detail. The Tribunal also considered the contention of the
management. The memorandum of understanding did not consider a
settlement within the meaning of Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947.
6. This Court has carefully considered that the impugned decision
dated 26th December, 2019 and the evidence before the first labour Court
below. This Court finds that the procedure prescribed under the
Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 was duly followed. The petitioner got a
fair opportunity to present his case and also cross-examined the witness
of the management. There is therefore no error on account of procedure
or violation of principles of natural justice in the proceedings leading to
the impugned order.
7. Insofar as of the merits of the order are concerned it is now well
settled that a writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
does not sit an appeal over decisions of a lawfully constituted Tribunal
which has followed the procedure prescribed under the Act and the
Rules.
8. The findings of the Tribunal are based on the evidence on
record. The Tribunal has not travelled outside the evidence that has
come on record the memorandum of settlement dated 19.10.2019 has
been duly considered, in accordance with law, as has been the oral
evidence of the witnesses including that of the writ petitioner. The
impugned order can neither be called perverse nor is it contrary to the
records.
9. The settlement in question could not constitute an award within
the meaning of Section 33(c)(2) of the Act, 1947.
10. In those circumstances the impugned judgment and order dated
22nd December, 2019 passed by the first labour Court, Kolkata calls for
absolutely no interference and is upheld.
11. The decision of the Tribunal has been confined to the entitlement,
if any, of the petitioner under the aforesaid memorandum or settlement
dated 9th October, 2019.
12. Needless to mention that in the event the petitioner succeeds in
the challenge to the dismissal order passed against him in any forum he
may be entitled to any other benefits that are available to him in law.
13. In view of the above, WPO/2875/2022 shall stand dismissed.
14. Interim order, if any, shall stand vacated.
15. No order as to costs.
16. The records of the Tribunal be returned back by the Registry as
expeditiously as possible.
(RAJASEKHAR MANTHA, J.)
Snn/mg
