Tripura High Court
M/S. Zydus Healthcare Ltd vs ) Shri Tathagata Paul on 17 November, 2025
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
1
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) NO.544 OF 2025
M/S. ZYDUS HEALTHCARE LTD.
Represented by Mr. Narendra B. Tangar, Deputy General Manager - HR
Department, Having office at 'Zydus Tower', CTS No. 460/6, Village Pahadi,
Goregaon East, Mumbai-400063.
...Petitioner
VERSUS
1) SHRI TATHAGATA PAUL,
S/o Sh. Tapan Paul R/o-Reshambagan,
Agartala, District-West Tripura - 799008.
2) LABOUR COMMISSIONER
Govt. of Tripura, Office Lane,
Agartala, West Tripura, 799001.
3) THE STATE OF TRIPURA
Represented by Principal Secretary,
Department of Labour, Govt. of Tripura,
New Capital Complex,
P.O-Secretariat Complex, Agartala,
P.S- New Capital Complex
Dist. West Tripura.
............Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arurag Lakhotia, Advocate.
Mr. B. Paul, Advocate.
Ms. R. Dey, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharyya, G.A.
WP(C) NO.545 of 2025
M/S. ZYDUS HEALTHCARE LTD.
Represented by Mr. Narendra B. Tangar,
Deputy General Manager-HR Department,
Having office at 'Zydus Tower',
CTS No. 460/6, Village Pahadi,
Goregaon East, Mumbai-400063.
...Petitioner.
Page 2 of 5
VERSUS
1) SHRI TATHAGATA PAUL
S/o Sh. Tapan Paul
R/o-Reshambagan, Agartala,
District - West Tripura -799008.
2) THE PRESIDING OFFICER
Labour Court, The District Judge West Tripura,
Agartala.
3) LABOUR COMMISSIONER
Govt. of Tripura, Office Lane,
Agartala, West Tripura, 799001.
4) THE STATE OF TRIPURA,
Represented by Principal Secretary.
Department of Labour,
Govt. of Tripura, New Capital Complex,
P.O-Secretariat Complex, Agartala,
P.S- New Capital Complex,
Dist. West Tripura.
.........Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arurag Lakhotia, Advocate.
Mr. B. Paul, Advocate.
Ms. R. Dey, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharyya, G.A.
Date of hearing and delivery
of judgment and order : 17.11.2025
Whether fit for reporting : YES/NO
HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
1. Since both the writ petitions arises out of a common cause of
action and involves identical question of facts and law, they are heard together and
taken up for disposal.
2. The brief facts of WP(C) No.544 of 2024 is that the petitioner,
M/s Zydus Healthcare Ltd., is a pharmaceutical company. Respondent-Shri
Tathagata Paul, was an employee whose services were terminated after a
departmental/domestic enquiry. Following the termination, the employee raised an
industrial dispute before the Labour Department, Government of Tripura.
Conciliation proceedings were initiated by the Labour Commissioner. No settlement
could be arrived at. After receiving the report of the Conciliation Officer, the State
Government issued a Reference Order dated 31.03.2022 under Section 10(1) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referring the following issues to the Labour Court,
West Tripura, Agartala:-
(a) Whether the retrenchment of Shri Tathagata Paul from service is
illegal.
(b) If so, what relief he is entitled to.
3. Pursuant to this reference, Labour Case No. 05 of 2022 was
registered before the Labour Court and proceedings commenced. The present writ
petition, WP(C) No. 544 of 2025, seeking the following reliefs:-
"a. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the reference order
dated 31.03.2022 passed by Respondent No.2;
b. Issue any appropriate writ, order or direction to
declare that the dispute, if any, pertains to a dismissal pursuant to
disciplinary proceedings and not 'retrenchment', and
consequently remand the matter to Respondent No.2 for fresh
consideration strictly in accordance with law after granting the
Petitioner an opportunity of hearing;
c. Pass such other and further orders as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the
case."
4. The brief facts of WP(C) No.545 of 2025 is that after the
reference was made in 2022, the Labour Court, West Tripura, Agartala proceeded
with Labour Case No. 05 of 2022. On 15.12.2023, the Labour Court framed seven
issues for adjudication. Thereafter, the petitioner-management filed an application
dated 26.07.2024 under Section 151 CPC (read with the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947), seeking to frame two threshold issues as preliminary issues, namely:
(i) Whether the domestic enquiry conducted by the management was
fair, proper and valid.
(ii) Whether the claimant falls within the definition of "workman"
under Section 2(s) of the ID Act.
5. The employee (respondent) filed objections to the said
application on 27.09.2024. By order dated 06.06.2025, the learned Labour Court
rejected the petitioner's application, holding that the maintainability issue already
covered the objections raised and that separate preliminary issues were not required
at that stage.
6. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed WP(C) No. 545
of 2025 before this Court, seeking the following reliefs:-
"a Issue a writ of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction thereby quashing and setting
aside the impugned order dated 06.06.2025 passed by the Ld.
District Judge, Labour Court, West Tripura, Agartala in Labour
Case No. 05 of 2022, after calling the record of the same;
b. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Ld. District
Judge, Labour Court, West Tripura, Agartala to specifically
frame and decide, as preliminary issues in Labour Case No. 05 of
2022:
i. Whether the domestic enquiry conducted against
Respondent No. 1 was fair, proper, and valid in law; and
ii. Whether Respondent No. 3 falls within the
definition of "workman" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947.
c. Pass such other and further orderts) as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice."
7. Heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties.
8. In WP(C) No. 544 of 2025, the petitioner has challenged the
impugned order passed by the Labour Court. The writ petition is filed by the
company against the respondent workman (full facts are already discussed above).
9. On perusal of the records, it is evident that the challenge is
against the order dated 31.03.2022. However, in the affidavit filed in support of this
writ petition, the petitioner has not stated any reasons for not challenging 31.03.2022
order till November 2025. That from 2022 till November 2025 to overcome the
serious ground of laches no case has been made out. Nowhere in the pleadings has
the petitioner explained the delay in approaching this Court. In the absence of any
explanation for such prolonged inaction, the Court is of the considered view that the
writ petition suffers from gross laches, and on this sole ground, the writ petition
cannot be entertained. Accordingly, WP(C) No. 544 of 2025 stands dismissed.
10. In WP(C) No. 545 of 2025, the petitioner seeks a direction upon
the Labour Court to frame an issue before proceeding further, particularly an issue as
to "whether the enquiry conducted by the Management against the claimant was
illegal or unjustified, with the onus upon the claimant". The present writ petition is
essentially a consequential proceeding, arising out of the same cause of action that
originated in March 2022, and is connected with the earlier writ petition. Since the
principal writ petition, WP(C) No. 544 of 2025, wherein the petitioner challenged
the impugned order of the Labour Court, has already failed and has been dismissed,
this consequential writ petition cannot survive independently. Accordingly, WP(C)
No. 545 of 2025 also fails and is dismissed in the same terms.
11.. As a sequel, stay if any stands vacated. Pending application(s), if
any also stands closed.
DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD, J.
Suhanjit
SABYASAC Digitally signed by
SABYASACHI GHOSH
HI GHOSH Date: 2025.11.20
13:42:09 +05'30'
