Back
2024 Supreme(Cal) 1289
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Soumen Sen, Uday Kumar, JJ.
Bridge and Roof Company (India) Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Kamal Biswas & Ors. – Respondents
MAT 639 of 2023 with CAN 2 of 2023
Decided On : 07-05-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Partha Sarathi Sengupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Soumya Majumder, Adv. Mr. Samrat Dey Paul, Adv. Mr. Rohan Raj, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Sabyasachi Chatterjee, Adv., Mr. Subhrajit Saha, Adv. Ms. Sanchita Bera, Adv. Mr. Dipankar Das, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that delays in payment of dues under a binding settlement warrant interest unless explicitly excluded, reinforcing the enforceability of such settlements.
Headnote:
Interest - Employee Benefits - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2(p), 18, 19, 33C(1), 33C(2) - The court interpreted the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, emphasizing the binding nature of settlements and the necessity for timely payment of dues, establishing that delays warrant interest unless explicitly excluded.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired employee, challenged the delay in receiving arrears as per a settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act, which was signed on 30th March 2019 but not paid until 24th November 2022.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in payment was unreasonable and that the petitioner was entitled to interest on the arrears from April 1, 2019, as the settlement was binding and enforceable.
Issues: The main issues were the jurisdiction of the writ court in light of alternative remedies under the Industrial Disputes Act and the entitlement to interest on delayed payment of arrears.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the existence of an alternative remedy does not bar the writ jurisdiction, especially when the matter involves a clear right to payment under a binding settlement.
Result: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the order to pay interest on the delayed arrears.
JUDGMENT :
Soumen Sen, J.
1. The direction to pay interest to the petitioner on account of delay in payment of arrears in terms of settlement dated 30th March, 2019 is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.
2. Briefly stated, the writ petitioner was an employee of the appellant company on and from 4th September, 1990. He worked for almost 30 years before he retired from service on 31st May, 2019.
3. While he was in service, a bilateral memorandum of settlement under Section 2 (p) read with Section 18 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (in short, ‘I.D Act’) was entered into between the management of Bridge and Roof Company (India) Ltd., the appellant and all Unions comprising of the unionised employees of Bridge and Roof Company (India) Ltd. in respect of categories of employees who were on the role of the company as on 1st January, 2017 and also who have joined the company on or after 1st January, 2017. The Memorandum was given effect from 1st Jan uary, 2017 to 31st December, 2026 for a period of 10 years. The said settlement was duly signed on 31st March, 2019. The settlement was given retrospective effect from 1st January, 2017.
4. The petitioner on retirement however, did not receive the arrears salary payable in terms of the settlement until 24th November, 2022 when a cheque was made ready for payment. The petitioner filed the writ petition for computation of the retirement dues based on the memorandum of settlement dated 31st March, 2019 and to pay the amount as may be found due and payable on such computation with statutory composite interest on the said sum payable till the date of actual payment. In the writ petition it has been stated that the settlement, inter alia, contains a clause that while calculating the arrears under the head Perks and Allowances as applicable from 1st January, 2017 till the date of actual implementation of the settlement the value of existing benefits already provided/availed from 1st January, 2017 till the month preceding to the month of the said implementation shall be recovered/adjusted from the payment of the respective staff, sub staff and workmen. The modalities of such recovery would be subsequently formulated prior to releasing the arrear payments.
5. The writ petitioner in paragraph 7 has given the financial condition of the appellant company from 2016 till 2021 to show its financial ability to pay the aforesaid sum. The writ petitioner has also stated that owing to the persistent hard-work of the employees and other stakeholders the respondent company could make such significant profit for the aforesaid financial years.
6. The grievance of the writ petitioner was that although a representation was made on 28th July, 2022 for release of arrears together with interest the company issued a cheque in his favour only on 24th November, 2022 for the principal amount without any interest. The learned Single Judge allowed interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from 1st April, 2019 till 24th November, 2022 (being the date on which the cheque was made ready and payable to the writ petitioner).
7. Mr. Partha Sarathi Sengupta, the learned Senior Advocate representing the appellant has submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of an alternative remedy available under Section 33 C(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The petitioner is claiming a monetary benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and for that he is required to approach the labour court for implementation of the settlement and in the event the said amount is not paid recourse to Section 33 C(1) could have been resorted to as it provides the mechanism for recovery of such amount.
8. Mr. Sengupta submits that it is well settled that the Industrial Dispute Act is a comprehensive and self-contained code so far as it speaks and the enforcement of rights created thereby can only be through the procedure laid down therein, per Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, in Rohtas Industries Ltd. & Anr. v. Roh
