Dipali Dutta vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 6882 Cal

     7                   IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
09.10.2023              CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
   sb
   Ct 550                       APPELLATE SIDE
                                 WPA 14844 of 2023
                                       Dipali Dutta
                                           Vs.
                             The State of West Bengal & Ors.


                         Ms. Suveni Banerjee
                                    ... For the petitioner.


                         Mr. Arjun Roy Mukherjee
                         Mr. Subhendu Sengupt
                                         ... For the State.

                         Ms. Nilanjana Adhya
                         Ms. Bishalaxmi Ghosh
                               ... For the respondent no.3.

1. Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on

record.

2. The present application has been filed inter alia

praying for a direction upon the respondent no.3 to pay

the admitted dues of the petitioner as also challenging the

determination made in computation case No. 13 of 2018

and No. 50 of 2019 by the learned First Labour Court by

its order dated 15th July, 2022.

3. Since it was claimed by the advocate for the

petitioner that the order passed under Section 17B of the

said Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to

as the said Act) had also not been complied with, Ms.

Adhya, learned advocate representing the respondent no.

3 in response to a query by this Court, submits that her

client is interested to comply with the direction passed by

this Court on 13th February, 2013. She submits that in

terms of the aforesaid direction her client has already

made certain payments, however, she is at present not

aware as to the exact amount, due and payable to the

petitioner in terms of the aforesaid order.

4. Ms. Banerjee, learned advocate representing the

petitioner on the other hand submits that the respondent

no.3 is not interested to comply with the order passed by

this Court or any other Court of law. Despite an award

issued by the learned Labour Court on 24th March, 2011,

directing reinstatement of the petitioner in service along

with full back wages to be paid within 60 days from the

date of passing of this award, the same had not been

complied with.

5. On the contrary, the respondent no.3, had filed a

writ application before this Court, challenging the said

award. During the pendency of the said application the

petitioner was compelled to file an application under

Section 17B of the said Act, inter alia praying for

minimum compensation as provided for by the statute. By

a judgment and order dated 13th February, 2013 a

Coordinate Bench of this Court was, inter alia, pleased to

allow the said application under Section 17B of the said

Act, with a further direction upon the respondent no.3 to

pay the arrear that had fallen due. According to the

petitioner, the respondent no.3 has not complied with the

said direction as well, and only paid a sum of Rs.18,000/-

till date.

7. In the circumstances aforesaid, the petitioner was

compelled to move separate applications under Section

33C (2) of the said Act. By two separate orders dated 15th

July, 2022, the learned First Labour Court has allowed

the applications in part, thereby directing payment of

Rs.3,92,000/- and Rs. 22,000/- respectively. According to

the petitioner, the learned Tribunal has incorrectly arrived

at the aforesaid figure though, the petitioner's entitlement

is much more. It is submitted that till date the respondent

no.3 has not complied with any of the directions passed

either by this Hon'ble Court or by the learned Labour

Court.

8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for

the respective parties and taking note of the submissions

made by Ms. Adhya, I am of the view that Ms. Adhya, on

the returnable date, should indicate the amount due and

payable to the petitioner by the respondent no.3, in terms

of the order dated 13th February, 2013 and should place

before this Court a cheque drawn in the name of the

petitioner, the amount that may be found due and payable

in terms of the order dated 13th February, 2013.

9. At this stage, Ms. Adhya submits that the

respondent no.3 needs some time to liquidate the

admitted dues that have accrued pursuant to the order

dated 13th February, 2013.

10. Since, it is submitted by Ms. Banerjee that a sum in

excess of Rs.4 lakhs is due and payable, I am of the view

that the respondent no.3 should be directed to place

before this Court a cheque for a sum of Rs.2 lakhs drawn

in favour of the petitioner on the returnable date or in the

alternative, if on the computation to be made by the

respondent no.3, a sum less than Rs. 2 lakhs is payable,

then a cheque drawn in the name of the petitioner for sum

as may be found due along with calculations be placed, on

the returnable date.

11. List this matter under the same heading on 13th

October, 2023.

(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)