Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Debjit Chatterjee vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 13 October, 2023
14 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
13.10.2023 CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
sb
Ct 550 APPELLATE SIDE
WPA 12191 of 2023
Debjit Chatterjee
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Balaram Patra
Mr. Suvadip Bhattacharjee
... For the petitioner.
Mr. Arjun Roy Mukherjee
Mr. Subhendu Sengupta
... For the State
1. The petitioner's claim arises out and in connection with
the order passed by the Second Labour Court, Kolkata,
on 28th October, 2013.
2. The petitioner claims to be an employee of the
respondent no. 7. Questioning the order of termination
of service issued by the respondent no.7, an industrial
dispute was raised and the same was referred to the
learned Third Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, under
the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The said
proceedings were finally decided in favour of the
petitioner by an award passed by the learned Third
Industrial Tribunal dated 11th October, 2007. The
learned Tribunal while declaring the order of
termination to be illegal, had directed reinstatement of
the petitioner with payment of full back wages and
other consequential reliefs.
3. Although, the respondent no.7 had challenged the said
award before this Hon'ble Court, by a judgment and
order dated 3rd July, 2008 the said application was
dismissed by confirming the award as regards the
reinstatement of the petitioner along with full back
wages.
4. The respondent no.7 having not reinstated the
petitioner in service and having not paid the back
wages, the petitioner had filed an application under
Section 33C(2) of the said Act, inter alia, praying for
quantification of his claim. By an order dated 28th
October, 2013, the learned Second Labour Court,
Kolkata, was, inter alia, pleas to allow the said
application in part thereby, declaring that the
petitioner is entitled to get Rs.1,16,330/- towards back
wages, including other consequential benefits. The
respondent no.7 was, thus, directed to pay the said
amount within 90 days from the date of passing of the
order, in default, to pay additional interest at the rate
of 10 per cent per annum till the realization of the
aforesaid amount.
5. Since, the respondent no.7 did not comply with the
aforesaid direction, the respondent no.1 lodged a
complaint before the learned Sixth Metropolitan
Magistrate, which was registered as CS0009820 of
2015. The learned Sixth Metropolitan Magistrate had
thereafter, taken up the matter and in connection with
the said proceedings a report was filed by the
respondent no.5, being the Inspector-in-Charge, Lake
Town Police Station vide letter dated 27th February,
2018 wherefrom, it appears that upon receipt of the
warrant when the said respondent had proceeded to
secure and attach the assets of the respondent no.7
and/or of its Managing Director, it was found that the
respondent no.7, had already been sealed in presence
of superior police officer of Bidhannagar Police
Commissionerate, as per the order passed by a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court in WP 4059 (W) of
2015, dated 30th March, 2015. Under such
circumstances, the original warrant was returned to
the learned Sixth Metropolitan Magistrate and the
same could not be executed.
6. The petitioner says that having failed to get the
property of the respondent no.7 attached and sold for
recovery of its claim, he had applied before the Hon'ble
Larger Bench in seisin of the above matter by filing a
writ petition, which was registered as WPA 4575 of
2019.
7. Since, the claim concerned enforcement of an award
passed by the Tribunal, the matter was delisted due to
want of determination. Such fact would corroborate
from the order dated 19th March, 2019.
8. In terms of the aforesaid order the aforesaid writ
petition was listed before a Co-ordinate Bench, when
by an order dated 13th January, 2020 the Co-ordinate
Bench by taking note of the reference being made to
the One-man Committee, presiding over by Justice
Talukdar, requested the Committee to look into the
representation made by the petitioner and pass a
reasoned order.
9. The Committee, headed by Justice Talukdar, by his
order dated 17th February, 2020 was of the view that
since, the Committee had been formed on the basis of
the direction dated 23rd December, 2015 passed by the
Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in MAT 559 of
2015 and was directed to deal with the matter in terms
of the guidelines set forth by the Hon'ble Division
Bench, the Committee was not authorized to entertain
the claim as made by the petitioner.
10. The petitioner has once again approached this
Hon'ble seeking implementation of a right which has
already been crystallized in his favour by successive
judicial pronouncements. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned
advocate representing the petitioner by placing the
order dated 23rd December, 2015 passed by the
Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in MAT 559 of
2015, submits that the said order does not and cannot
interfere with the petitioner's right to enforce his claim
as against the respondent no.7. The said order seeks to
afford certain protection to the investors. The petitioner,
however, contends that his claim lies on higher
pedestal and the same has already been established
before a competent judicial forum. He prays for specific
directions for execution of the order dated 28th October,
2013.
11. Mr. Sengupta, learned advocate representing the
State respondents enters appearance in the matter.
12. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties and considered the materials on
record. Admittedly, in this case I find that the
petitioner's claim has already been crystallized in a
legally enforceable right. Ordinarily, where assets are
held by a Court and more persons than one have,
before receipt of such assets, made application to the
Court for which execution of the decrees for the
payment of money passed against the same judgment
debtor and have not obtained satisfaction thereof, the
assets, after deducting the costs of realization, shall be
rateably distributed among all such persons.
13. In this case the petitioner claims to have a superior
right in terms of the provisions contained in Section
327 of the Companies Act, 2013.
14. Since, despite service the respondent no.7 is not
represented and taking note of the fact that assets and
properties of the respondent no.7 are being held
and/or dealt with by the One-man Committee
constituted pursuant to and in terms of the order
dated 23rd December, 2015 passed in WPA 4059 of
2015, presided over by Justice Talukdar, I am of the
view, that since, the petitioner's claim has already been
determined, the petitioner at this stage, should be
entitled to at least minimum protection, in the form of
attachment of his claim from the assets lying in the
hands of the Committee presided over by Justice
Talukdar.
15. In view thereof, and in the light of the provisions
contained under Section 73 of the Code of Civil
Procedure 1908, read with Section 327 of the
Companies Act, 2013, the Committee of Justice
Talukdar, is requested to keep apart, a sum of
Rs.1,16,330/- from the assets of the respondent no.7.
16. The petitioner is directed to communicate the
aforesaid order to the Committee of Justice Talukdar
and the non-appearing respondents.
17. The respondents shall be at liberty to file affidavit-
in-opposition to the present application within a period
of two weeks after the puja vacation. Reply, if any,
thereto, be filed with a week thereafter.
18. List this matter in the Combined Monthly List of
December, 2023 under the heading, "Hearing".
(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)
