Glenmark Pharmaceuticals ... vs The State Of Tripura
2021 Latest Caselaw 885 Tri

                             Page 1 of 9


                     HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                         AGARTALA
                     WP(C) NO.457 OF 2020

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited, a company within the
meaning of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered
office at B/2, Mahalaxmi Chambers, 22, Bhulabhai Desai Road,
Mumbai-400 026 and its corporate office at Glenmark House,
B.D. Sawant Marg, Chakala, Andheri East, Mumbai 400 099,
India, represented by its authorized person.
                                               ----Petitioner
                               Versus
1. The State of Tripura,
to be represented by its Secretary, Department of Labour,
having his office at 1st Floor, Old AMC Building, Jacksongate,
Agartala, Tripura.
2. Presiding Officer,
Labour Tribunal (Ld. District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala),
Agartala, West Tripura.
3. Bidhan Das, S/o Late Uttam Kumar Das, residing at P.S.-
P.R. Bari, Belonia, South Tripura, Pin-799157 and C/o Ranjit
Roy, Gangail Road, Near RamkrishNA Ashram Lane, Agartala-
799001 and also at C/o. New Medical Agency Private Limited,
Ronaldsay Road, Battala, Agartala-799001.

                                       ---- Respondents.

WP(C) NO.458 OF 2020

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited, a company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at B/2, Mahalaxmi Chambers, 22, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mumbai-400 026 and its corporate office at Glenmark House, B.D. Sawant Marg, Chakala, Andheri East, Mumbai 400 099, India, represented by its authorized person.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Tripura, to be represented by its Secretary, Department of Labour, having his office at 1st Floor, Old AMC Building, Jacksongate, Agartala, Tripura.

2. Presiding Officer, Labour Tribunal (Ld. District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala), Agartala, West Tripura.

3. Kiran Kumar De, S/o Late Gopal De, residing at Bhattapukur, Near Apanjan Club, Post Office, Police Station, A.D. Nagar, Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799003.

---- Respondents.

WP(C) NO.459 OF 2020

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited, a company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at B/2, Mahalaxmi Chambers, 22, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mumbai-400 026 and its corporate office at Glenmark House, B.D. Sawant Marg, Chakala, Andheri East, Mumbai 400 099, India, represented by its authorized person.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Tripura, to be represented by its Secretary, Department of Labour, having his office at 1st Floor, Old AMC Building, Jacksongate, Agartala, Tripura.

2. Presiding Officer, Labour Tribunal (Ld. District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala), Agartala, West Tripura.

3. Rajib Kumar Sarma, S/o Late Rakhal Kumar Sharma, residing at College Tilla, Vijaya Apartment, P.S.- East Agartala, District-West Tripura and also at Bijoy Apartment, First Floor, Block No.1, Flat No.A, College Tilla, Station Road, Jogendra Nagar, Agartala-799004.

---- Respondents.

WP(C) NO.460 OF 2020

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited, a company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at B/2, Mahalaxmi Chambers, 22, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mumbai-400 026 and its corporate office at Glenmark House, B.D. Sawant Marg, Chakala, Andheri East, Mumbai 400 099, India, represented by its authorized person.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Tripura, to be represented by its Secretary, Department of Labour, having his office at 1st Floor, Old AMC Building, Jacksongate, Agartala, Tripura.

2. Presiding Officer, Labour Tribunal (Ld. District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala), Agartala, West Tripura.

3. Suman Das, S/o Late Ishwar Chandra Das, residing at A.D. Nagar Road No.12, West Tripura, Agartala-799003.

---- Respondents.

WP(C) NO.461 OF 2020

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited, a company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at B/2, Mahalaxmi Chambers, 22, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mumbai-400 026 and its corporate office at Glenmark House, B.D. Sawant Marg, Chakala, Andheri East, Mumbai 400 099, India, represented by its authorized person.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Tripura, to be represented by its Secretary, Department of Labour, having his office at 1st Floor, Old AMC Building, Jacksongate, Agartala, Tripura.

2. Presiding Officer, Labour Tribunal (Ld. District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala), Agartala, West Tripura.

3. Alakesh Roy, son of Rampada Roy, residing at Netaji Palli, Post Office-Madhuban, Dukli, Police Station-Amtali, District- West Tripura and also having his address at New Medical Agency, Agartala Ronald Say Road, Agartala, Tripura-799 001.

---- Respondents.

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Somik Deb, Sr. Advocate Mr. T.D. Majumder, Sr. Advocate Mr. Raju Datta, Advocate Ms. S. Chism, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, Advocate Mr. P. Saha, Advocate

Date of hearing and delivery of Judgment & Order : 10.09.2021 Whether fit for reporting : YES

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH J U D G M E N T & O R D E R(ORAL)

Heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned Sr. Counsel and Mr. T.D.

Majumder, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. Raju Datta, learned

counsel and Ms. S. Chism, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner as well as Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned Sr. Counsel assisted

by Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the private-

respondents and Mr. P. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the

State-respondents.

2. This bunch of writ petitions has been taken up and heard

together because common questions of law and facts are involved.

3. At the very outset, Mr. Somik Deb, learned Sr. Counsel has

raised the question of maintainability of the proceedings initiated by

the respondents before the learned Labour Court. Learned Sr.

Counsel has submitted that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to

proceed under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act since

the said provision had been repealed by the Gazette Notification

dated 9th May, 2016 whereby, the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 had

been amended and Section 2-A(2) had been expressly repealed. Due

to such repeal of the provision, the findings and awards passed by

the Labour Court cannot have any force in the eye of the law.

4. Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the

private-respondents has fairly conceded to this submission of the

learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

5. On plain reading of the relevant provisions of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947(for short, I.D. Act), it comes to fore that before

amendment of I.D. Act by the Amendment Act of 24 of 2010, which

is called as Industrial Disputes(Amendment) Act, 2010, Section 10

statutorily obligated a workman who approached the appropriate

Government for his opinion in case of any dispute between the

employer and the workman and if the appropriate Government was

of the opinion that any industrial dispute existed or was

apprehended, then, it would refer the matter to the Boards, Courts

or Tribunals. By the Amendment Act of 24 of 2010 in the I.D. Act

giving its effect from 15.09.2010, Sub-section(2) of Section 2-A

empowered a workman to approach the Labour Court or Tribunal by

way of making an application directly notwithstanding anything

contained in Section 10 for adjudication of the disputes arising out of

dismissal, discharge, retrenchment or otherwise after the expiry of

45(forty five) days from the date he makes the application to the

Conciliation Officer of the appropriate Government for conciliation of

the dispute and the Labour Court or Tribunal has been given powers

to adjudicate such dispute. It would be useful to extract Section 2-

A(2) of the I.D. Act, which is as under:

"(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 10, any such workman as is specified in sub-section (1) may, make an application direct to the Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute referred to therein after the expiry of forty-five days from the date he has made the application to the Conciliation Officer of the appropriate Government for conciliation of the dispute, and in receipt of such application the Labour Court or Tribunal shall have powers and jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute, as if it were a dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government in accordance with the provisions of this Act and all the provisions of this Act shall apply in relation to such adjudication as they apply in relation to an industrial dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government."

However, the legislature in its own wisdom had repealed

the said provision under the Repealing and Amendment Act, 2016

w.e.f. 9th May, 2016, wherein the Amendment Act of 2010 in whole

became redundant and thereby repealed. The respondents/workmen

had filed their applications under Section 2-A(2) of the Amendment

Act, 2010 before the Labour Court in the month of July, 2017 when

the said Amendment Act itself was repealed by subsequent

Amendment Act, 2016.

6. Repeal of statute means the abolition of the law, and once

if any statute is abolished, then, it is considered void having no

effects. As per Halsbury's Laws of England, the term repeal stands

for revoking and abolishing an act and all its effects, which cause it

to cease to be a part of statues of books or body of law. According to

the Black's Law dictionary, the term repeal means a legislative act

which abrogates or obliterates an existing statute. The primary

object of this act is to bring necessary changes in the existing law

for changing socio-economic conditions from time to time. Further,

express repeal is an expression which means the abolition of the

previously enacted statute by the newly enacted provisions of a

statute through expressed words embedded under the new statute

enacted. The statute which has been repealed is called repealed

statute and the one which replaces the earlier statute is called the

repealing statute. To constitute an express repeal, the first and

foremost feature is that there must be a repealing statute; the

earlier statute must be repealed by the new enacting or repealing

statute; and the enacted statute must have clear intention showing

the effect of the repeal. Further, in my considered view, there is no

difference between the amendment and repeal since both the term

connotes substitution or omission or addition.

7. It is a settled proposition of law that issue of jurisdiction,

even if raised at a later state touches upon the validity of the order

passed by any Court or Tribunal. It leaves me with the facet of the

argument touching upon the validity of the order made by the

Labour Court.

8. Courts or Tribunals having no jurisdiction cannot try or

adjudicate any application or suit filed before it. Where a Court

making an order/judgment/award, etc. lacks inherent jurisdiction,

such order/judgment/award would be without jurisdiction, non est,

and null and void ab initio as defect of jurisdiction of such

Court/Tribunal goes to the root of the matter and strikes of its very

authority to pass any judgment/order/award. Added to it, such

defect cannot be cured in any manner whatsoever.

9. Now, reverting to the facts of the instant case, I find that

the learned Labour Court(District Judge, West Tripura) had

adjudicated the applications filed by the respondents-workmen when

he lacked inherent jurisdiction to accept applications filed by the

respondents before him and further tried, and ultimately passed

judgments. Such adjudication ultimately touched upon the validity of

the judgments passed by the learned Labour Court (District Judge)

and shall have no force in the eye of law.

10. For the reasons discussed and analysed here-in-above on

law and facts, I have no other alternative but to interfere with the

judgments and awards passed by the learned Labour Court (District

Judge, West Tripura, Agartala) in Case No. Labour 01/2017, Labour

02/2017, Labour 03/2017, Labour 04/2017 and Labour 05/2017.

Accordingly, the common judgment dated 30.05.2020 passed in

connection with the afore-mentioned cases is set aside. However,

the respondents/workmen have been given liberty to approach the

appropriate forum in accordance with Section 10 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 and after receipt of such application, the

appropriate authority shall proceed further in accordance with law.

11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this bunch

of writ petitions is allowed and disposed of.

JUDGE

suhanjit