In a significant development in labour jurisprudence, the Calcutta High Court, exercising its constitutional writ jurisdiction, has annulled three orders passed by Labour Courts between 2006 and 2011 on the ground that they were obtained through deliberate suppression of material facts by the workman concerned. Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul), held that the awards rendered under Sections 10(1B)(d) and 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were vitiated by fraud, rendering them void in law.
The writ petition was filed by two Directors of a now-defunct company, Advance Management Services Ltd., challenging an award passed by the 2nd Labour Court in Computation Case under Section 10(1B)(d), an ex parte order passed by the 1st Labour Court in Case under Section 33C(2), and the rejection of their application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The respondent no. 2, a former employee of the petitioners’ company, had raised an industrial dispute alleging illegal termination. Although a settlement was recorded before the Assistant Labour Commissioner directing reinstatement and partial payment of back wages, the respondent failed to comply with its terms and later initiated proceedings under Section 10(1B)(d).
Subsequently, despite having secured employment as an Assistant Teacher in a government primary school from November 1999, the respondent pursued claims for reinstatement and back wages from the petitioners, resulting in the impugned awards.
The petitioners contended that the respondent no. 2, while seeking reinstatement, had deliberately concealed his employment as a government school teacher since November 1999. RTI replies and official records submitted by the petitioners evidenced the respondent’s continuous service in the school since 12.11.1999. It was further argued that the orders were secured by misrepresentation and fraud, and were liable to be set aside under the settled legal principle that fraud vitiates all judicial acts.
In support, reliance was placed on judgments of the Supreme Court, including S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu vs. Jagannath, Ram Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors, and Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., wherein it was held that suppression of material facts or documents amounts to fraud and renders any judicial order obtained thereby a nullity.
The respondent, in his affidavit, failed to address or dispute the authenticity of the documentary evidence relating to his employment status.
The Court noted that despite joining government service in November 1999, the respondent “raised an industrial dispute and moved the Labour Court for reinstatement and back wages.” The judgment recorded, “It has been proved beyond doubt (RTI reply dated 26.06.2019) that the respondent no. 2 is an Assistant teacher on and from 12.11.1999.”
Notably, the Court observed that this material fact was never disclosed to either the Labour Court or the Magistrate's Court during the pendency of the proceedings. Highlighting the suppression, Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) concluded:
“As such, as it appears that the respondent no. 1 has obtained the said orders under Sections 10(1B) and 33(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by non-disclosure of the relevant material documents with a view to obtain an undue advantage, it amounts to fraud and the said orders obtained by fraud are a nullity and accordingly void.”
While allowing the petition, the Court declared the impugned orders passed by the 2nd Labour Court, the 1st Labour Court and the rejection order as null and void. It further clarified that the question of limitation did not arise, as the last challenged order fell well within the permissible time frame of the writ petition filed in 2013.
Case Title: Sanjay Chhajer & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr.
Case No.: WPA 22095 of 2013
Coram: Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Ratikanta Pal
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Biswarup Biswas and Gorachand Samanta
Picture Source :
