Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.
M/s. Century Extrusions Limited. - Petitioner
Versus
The State of West Bengal And Ors. - Respondents
WPA 20114 of 2025
Decided On : 06-05-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history of the dismissal and referral to labour court. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. petitioner challenges the labour court's refusal to adjudicate preliminary jurisdictional issues. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. written demand is not a mandatory prerequisite for an industrial dispute. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 28) |
| 4. scope of labour court jurisdiction over validity of government reference orders. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 5. tribunals have authority to determine their own jurisdiction regarding the existence of an industrial dispute. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 6. impugned order set aside with direction for expeditious adjudication. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
JUDGMENT :
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.
1. The writ application has been preferred challenging an order 17.02.2025 passed by the First Labour Court in Case No. 18 of 2023.
2. Vide the impugned order, the First Labour Court on deciding the challenge as to maintainability of the Order of Reference, relying upon several judgments, was of the view that the Labour Court has “no jurisdiction for adjudicating, the maintainability of the Order of Reference” before it made by appropriate government and the petition filed by O.P./Company dt. 27.08.2024 stood rejected. The case was fixed for further evidence.
3. The petitioner herein, being the opposite party before the Labour Court challenged the maintainability of the Order of Reference in the present case.
4. It is the order of the Labour Court that has been challenged herein and not the Order of Reference. The petitioner has stated regarding the employment of the respondent no. 3 and his misconduct, leading to the financial loss of the petitioner and as he did not mend himself, a charge sheet was issued and domestic enquiry was conducted.
5. Finally, the respondent no. 3 was dismissed from service on 08.09.2021 and by a letter dated 30.11.2021 the respondent no. 3 was directed to collect all his dues.
6. It is stated that the respondent no. 3 did not challenge the order of dismissal but approached the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kharagpur and a conciliation proceeding was initiated, which failed. An industrial dispute on the issue of the termination of respondent no. 3 was referred to the respondent no. 2 by the respondent no. 1.
7. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Labour Court which categorically states that the Labour Court does not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate or decide as to the maintainability of the Order of Reference before it made by the appropriate Government.
8. The petitioner states that the Labour Court had the authority to consider the maintainability of the Order of Reference and as such the impugned order not being in accordance with law is liable to be set aside and the Labour Court should decide the maintainability of the Reference on merit being empowered to do so.
9. One of the grounds on which, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order is that the Labour court has erroneously opined and observed that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction for adjudicating the maintainability of the order of reference made before it by the appropriate government, while at the same time the Court rejected the petition filed by OP/ Company dated 27.08.24. Thus, it is argued that the impugned order suffers from self-contradiction and is liable to be set aside.
10. It is further stated that the impugned order is not in accordance with law as the Labour Court upon hearing the parties, decided to hear on the point of maintainability of the order of reference, first, separately as preliminary issue and fixed dates for hearing for which an application was filed by petitioner but ignoring the earlier orders in a most whimsical manner rejected the application which goes in conflict of the Court’s earlier orders and thus cannot be sustained.
11. It is further stated by the petitioner that that the legal point as to whether prior demand before the management i
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, an individual workman can approach the Labour Court directly against alleged terminatio....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act can only be considered a dispute if a specific demand has been made by the workmen, and any refere....
Point of Law - There is no embargo on the writ Court to quash a wholly inappropriate or undesirable or invalid reference order, in case no industrial dispute exists.
Section 11A reads as powers of Labour Courts, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.
Industrial disputes under the Industrial Disputes Act can be raised at any time; delay does not bar adjudication if the dispute remains valid and justiciable.
The court upheld the validity of a reference order made under the Industrial Disputes Act, emphasizing the administrative nature of such references and allowing the Tribunal to adjudicate claims from....
Point of Law- Law does not prescribe any time-limit for the appropriate Government to exercise its powers under Section 10 of the Act. It is not that this power can be exercised at any point of time ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
