Back
2002 Supreme(Cal) 531
High Court Of Calcutta
Debiprasad Sengupta
ASOKE AIKAT - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
C. R. R. 953 Of 2002
Decided On : 08/09/2002
MILON MUKHERJEE.S.R.PAUL, Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, SWAPAN KUMAR MALLICK
The State amendment of Section 33-C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which empowered the Chief Judicial Magistrate or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to realize the money due as if it were a fine imposed by such Magistrate, was not repugnant to the parent Act and was a valid exercise of the State's legislative power.
Headnote:
{'KEYWORD': 'Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 33-C - Recovery of Money Due from Employer', 'SUBJECT': 'Procedure for Recovery of Money Due from Employer under Section 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947', 'ACT SECTION LIST': ['Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 33-C', 'Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 421']}
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employer, challenged a proceeding initiated under Section 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as amended by the Industrial Disputes (W. B. 2nd Amendment) Act, 1980, for recovery of dues owed to workmen.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the State amendment of Section 33-C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which empowered the Chief Judicial Magistrate or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to realize the money due as if it were a fine imposed by such Magistrate, was not repugnant to the parent Act and was a valid exercise of the State's legislative power.
Issues: 1. Whether the State amendment of Section 33-C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was repugnant to the parent Act and therefore void. 2. Whether the procedure adopted by the Magistrate for recovery of the money due was in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court found that the State amendment of Section 33-C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was not repugnant to the parent Act as it did not alter the substantive right of the workmen to recover the money due from the employer but merely provided a different procedure for realization of such money. 2. The court held that the procedure adopted by the Magistrate for recovery of the money due was in accordance with law as it was in conformity with the provisions of Section 421(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revisional application filed by the petitioner and directed the Magistrate to conclude the proceeding expeditiously within a period of six (6) weeks.
( 1 ) IN the present application the petitioner has challenged Misc. Execution Case No. 16 of 2000 under Section 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as amended by Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes (W. B. 2nd Amendment) Act, 1980 now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Burdwan.
( 2 ) IN terms of Order No. 382-IR dated 28. 2. 2000 passed by the Assistant Secretary to the Government of W. B. , the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Burdwan lodged a complaint with a prayer for initiating a proceeding for recovery of the amount of Rs. 6,65,809. 25 due to the workmen, before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Burdwan which was registered as Misc. Execution Case No. 16/2000. On receipt of such complaint the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and directed summons to be issued upon the petitioner fixing 2. 6. 2000 for further order and payment. On 2. 6. 2000 the matter was adjourned and thereafter by an order dated 12. 7. 2000 the learned Magistrate after receiving the service return of 'refusal' by the petitioner, issued warrant of arrest, which was challenged by the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge, Burdwan, The concerned workmen also filed an application before the learned Sessions Judge for impleading them as parties to the revisional application which was pending before the Sessions Judge. Such petition was allowed and the workmen was directed to be added as parties to the said revisional application. Such order of the learned Sessions Judge was challenged before this court in C. R. R. 3065 of 2000, which was disposed of by this court on 8. 1. 2001 with a direction upon the learned Sessions Judge to dispose of the revisional application within a period of four weeks from the date of communication.
( 3 ) THE revisional application was thereafter disposed of by the learned Sessions Judge on 13. 2. 2001 and the case was sent back to the learned Magistrate with a direction to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. Challenging such order dated 13. 2. 2001 this court was again moved in CRR-719 of 2001 which was disposed of by this court in 19. 7. 2001 directing the learned C. J. M. , Burdwan to expedite the proceeding and to conclude the same with utmost expedition.
( 4 ) AFTER the matter was sent back, the learned Magistrate fixed 15. 12. 2001 for service return and appearance. The petitioner on the said date again made a prayer for adjournment, which was rejected by the learned Magistrate and 21. 1. 2002 was fixed for payment of money. Such order dated 15. 12. 2001 was again challenged by the petitioner before the Sessions Judge, who by his order dated 28. 2. 2002 affirmed the order dated 15. 12. 2002 passed by the learned Magistrate. The said order dated 28. 2. 2002 is the subject matter of challenge in the present revisional application.
( 5 ) REFERRING to the provision of Section 33-C (1) of the Companies Act, it is submitted by the petitioner's learned Advocate that if the Government is satisfied that any amount is due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector who shall proceed to recover the same in the manner as provided in the said section. The learned advocate also refers to the State Amendment of Section 33-C (1) which is as follows:--West Bengal in Sub-section (1) of Section 33c of the principal Act, for the words "to the Collector who shall proceed to recover the same in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue", the words "to the Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, shall proceed to realise the money as if it were a fine imposed by such Magistrate".
( 6 ) NOW it is very much clear that in view of the amending provision as aforesaid the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has been empowered to proceed in such matter for realisation of the amount due in such a way as if it were a fine imposed by such Magistrate.
( 7 ) THE pe
