Form No.J(2)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present :

The Hon’ble Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury C.O. 3173 of 2022 CAN 1 of 2025 M/s Talbot & Company versus Jitendranath Ray & Ors.

For the petitioners : Mr. Rananeesh Guha Thakurta Ms. Senjuti Sengupta For the Opposite Party : Mr. Swagato Roy Heard on : 16.12.2025 Judgment on : 16.12.2025 Raja Basu Chowdhury, J:

1. The present application being CAN 1 of 2025 has been filed, inter alia, praying for extension of the interim order passed in the matter on 19^th September 2024.

2. Admittedly, in this case, the petitioner has suffered an order dated 25^th January 2019 passed by the Referee, West Bengal Shops and Establishment Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) and the Assistant Labour Commissioner El & MW Section, Kolkata.

3. The facts are that the opposite party had filed an application form ‘N’

dated 11^th July 2013 for recovery of his alleged unpaid wages for the period from November 2012 to March 2013 from his employer, the petitioner herein. According to the case made out by the opposite party, his employer did not pay his wages for the aforesaid period amounting to Rs. 57,537/-.

4. Following filing the above application, the matter was taken up for enquiry and a notice under Rule 32(3) of the West Bengal Shops and Establishment Rules, 1963 was issued on the petitioner / employer. According to the opposite party since his employer has assured that he shall clear his dues, the opposite party had waited and subsequently, since payment was not made, he approached the referee. Hence, there was delay in approaching the referee. Considering the peculiar facts, the delay in filing the application under Section 14 of the said Act was condoned.

5. On contested hearing, a finding of fact was returned that the petitioner being the employer had deputed the opposite party to Agarpara Jute Mill where he worked till his retirement on 31^st March 2013. accordingly, the referee held that the opposite party was entitled to Rs.57,537/- in accordance with the provisions of the said Act towards unpaid dues and also entitled to compensation amounting to two times of due wages. On the basis of such calculations, it was determined that an aggregate sum of Rs.57,537 x 2 + 57,537/- totaling to a sum of Rs.1,72,611/- was payable to the opposite party and in exercise of power under Section 14(3) of the said Act and the petitioner was directed to make the aforesaid payment within 30 days.

6. Challenging the aforesaid order, a writ petition was filed before this Court which was registered as WPA 19756 of 2020. By an order dated

16^th January 2020 the said writ petition was dismissed. Challenging the aforesaid order, an appeal was filed before the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court. In course of hearing of such appeal, the petitioner who was the appellant had raised two issues. First being the referee had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim as the employee-employer relationship had stood snapped as the opposite party had reached the age of superannuation and other ground that was canvassed before the Hon’ble Appeal Court was that the application was filed beyond the prescribed period of 6 months and the application was thus not maintainable.

7. While hearing out such appeal, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 6^th December 2021 had decided the issues against the petitioner, however, since the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of alternate remedy without deciding the writ petition on merits, liberty was granted to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal. The petitioner not only filed the statutory appeal but had also filed an application for stay in connection therewith which came to be rejected by order dated 18^th August 2022. The matter was taken up for consideration by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 19^th September 2024. It was argued before the Coordinate Bench that since the Hon’ble Division Bench had granted liberty to