Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Dinesh Kumar Samanta & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 10 October, 2023
10.10.2023
SL No.43
Court No.8
(gc)
MAT 1666 of 2023
CAN 1 of 2023
CAN 2 of 2023
Dinesh Kumar Samanta & Ors.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Shyamal Mukherjee,
Mr. Susanta Kr. Gangopadhyay,
...for the Appellants.
Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee,
Mr. Sourabh Sengupta,
Mr. Satyaki Banerjee,
...for the Calcutta University.
Re: CAN 1 of 2023
1. Sufficient cause being shown for not being
able to file the memorandum of appeal
within the period of limitation.
2. The delay of 47 days in filing the
memorandum of appeal is condoned.
3. Accordingly, the application for
condonation of delay is allowed and
disposed of.
Re: MAT 1666 of 2023
CAN 2 of 2023
4. The appellants are aggrieved by the order
dated 1st May, 2023. The appellants/writ
petitioners claimed to be persons
appointed by the canteen managers for
doing different works in the canteens of the
Calcutta University in different campus.
Initially, they filed a writ petition along
2
with 43 other canteens employees. The
writ petition was disposed of on 16th July,
1997 with a direction upon the State
Government to take a decision in a time
bound manner. The State Government,
however, declined to grant any relief
following the order of the learned Single
Judge. This decision was challenged by
filing the second writ petition being W.P.
190(W) of 2001. This writ petition was
disposed of on 21st February, 2001
granting liberty upon the writ petitioners to
make an application under Section 10 of
the Contract Labour (Regulation and
Abolition) Act, 1970. It appears that only
23 employees out of all the writ petitioners
preferred an appeal before a Division
Bench of this Court challenging the said
order dated 21st February, 2001 while the
remaining 22 including the present 5 writ
petitioners chose not to pursue the case
any further. It, thus, follows that the writ
petitioners who have preferred the appeal,
they have accepted the order of the learned
Single Judge by which they were required
to make an application under Section 10 of
the Contract Labour (Regulation and
Abolition) Act, 1970. However, the Appeal
3
Court allowed the appeal and directed the
State to consider the matter afresh in the
light of the observation made in the said
judgment. The State preferred a Special
Leave Petition. During the pendency of the
Special Leave Petition, the Chief Secretary
of the State by an order dated 5th
November, 2008 passed the following
directions:-
"In view of the above facts and
also in the light of the
observation made by the Hon'ble
Division Bench of High Court,
Calcutta, in order dated
26.07.2022 I am of the view that
the canteen employees of the
University may be treated as the
employees of the University and
they may be given the status of
the said University employees
subject to the condition that their
appointment to the post of the
canteen employees shall abide
by the result of the SLP which is
being filed in the matter of
State of W.B. & others - vs -
Dwijendra Nath Singha and
others.
The decision may, however, be
communicated to all concerned."
5. The said Special Leave Petition ( C ) 29773
of 2008 was subsequently disposed of on
4
March 1, 2016 with the
following observations:-
"However, when this special leave
petition was moved on 1.12.2008,
it is apparent that the order of
the Chief Secretary was not
known to this Court which was
dated 5.11.2008. In the
circumstances, while issuing
notice, order of interim stay came
to be passed. Nevertheless it
transpires that the respondents
herein (who are now 23+2)
continue to work in the canteen of
the University of Calcutta-
Respondent Nos. 24 & 25 herein.
Inasmuch as, in
his wisdom, the Chief Secretary
having applied his mind to the
plight of the above 25 employees,
thought it fit to implement the
decision of the Division Bench
dated 26.7.2007 by directing the
University of Calcutta
to treat them as employees of the
University and give the said
status, in all fairness, we are
convinced that the said direction
of the Chief Secretary should be
affirmed without giving scope for
any further ambiguity.
Therefore, while affirming the
said decision of the Chief
Secretary dated 5.11.2008, the
University of Calcutta is directed
to implement the said order
expeditiously, preferably within
four weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
With the above observations and
directions, the special leave
petition stands disposed of."
6. Ultimately, the State Government by an
order dated 29th September, 2016
confirmed the status of the said canteen
employees as the employees of the
University of Calcutta only for those who
were party to the appeal before the Division
Bench of this Court and the Supreme
Court. The present writ petitioners have
filed a writ petition for conferment of the
same benefit in 2018. The basis of the
said writ petition appears to be that since
the other canteen workers have been
regularized by the order dated 24th
September, 2016, similar benefit should be
extended to the writ petitioners by the
Government. The learned Single Judge
has relied upon the order of the Supreme
Court, which categorically stated that the
26 employees continued to work in the
canteen of the University of Calcutta and
the Chief Secretary has decided in their
favour, disposed of the writ petition by
affirming the judgment of the Division
Bench. The challenge by the present
petitioners at a later date appears to be a
clear afterthought and they cannot be
given the benefit of the order obtained by
26 petitioners who were found to be in
service at the time, when the SLP was
disposed of.
7. Under such circumstances, we are not
inclined to interfere with the order passed
by the learned Single Judge.
8. Accordingly, the appeal and the application
stand dismissed.
9. However, there shall be no order as to
costs.
10. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this
order, if applied for, be given to the parties
on usual undertaking.
(Uday Kumar, J.) (Soumen Sen, J.)
