IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction

Appellate Side

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)

WPA 5366 of 2025

Madhusudan Adhikary

Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

With

WPA 23265 of 2024 Sourav Chakraborty

Versus

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Lakhsman Chandra Halder (in

WPA 5366 of 2025).

Md. Baharuzzaman (in WPA

23265 of 2024).

For the Respondent No.4 : Mr. Asish Kr. Das,

Mr. Sunny Nandi,

Md. Baharuzzaman (in WPA

5366 of 2025).

For the State : Mr. Asish Kumar Guha

Mr. Naren Ghosh Dastidar (in WPA

5366 of 2025). Mr. K.J. Yusuf

Mr. Parikshit Goswami (in WPA

23265 of 2024).

Hearing concluded on : 22.07.2025 Judgment on : 06.08.2025

SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J. :

1. The writ application has been preferred challenging an award dated 16.02.2018 passed by the learned 8^th Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal in Case No. VIII-03/2011 and order dated 16^th April, 2024, passed by the First Labour Court in Computation Case No. 22 of 2021 under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.

2. The petitioner’s case is that he was appointed as Marketing Assistant by the respondent no.4 in the establishment of the respondent no.3, vide letter dated December 3, 2007 at its area of work in Kolkata, Hooghly, Howrah Birbhum, Nadia and 24 Parganas, both North and South. The petitioner “workman”

joined his service on December 5, 2007.

3. The petitioner submits that his service was terminated vide letter dated 25.08.2009 giving effect from 23.08.2009 and in spite of the petitioner putting in demand to be permitted to join was not allowed to do so.

4. It is further submitted that number of conciliation meetings failed due to the conduct of the respondent no. 4/company and as such a reference was made by the Government for adjudication of the following issues:-

“1. Whether termination of service of Shri Madhusudan Adhikary with effect from 23.08.2009 by the management is justified?

2. What relief, if any, the workman is entitled to?”

5. The Tribunal on considering the materials on record including the evidence, passed an award declaring the termination of service of the workman as illegal and unjustified and granted relief of reinstatement with 50% of back wages and other consequential benefits.

6. It is further submitted by the petitioners that when the private respondents failed to comply with the directions of the Learned Tribunal in spite of demand, the petitioner filed an application under Section 33C(2) of the Act, claiming back wages and other consequential benefits as per the award of the Learned Tribunal before the Learned 1st Labour Court, in Computation case no. Comp 15 of 2018 for the period from 25.08.2009 to June, 2018 i.e. from the date of termination till prior to the date of filing of the case.

7. It is submitted that the Labour Court erroneously held that the that the salary of the workman was Rs.3,000/- per month, without considering the fact that the management of the private respondent intentionally did not produce the books of account, to suppress the fact that the management actually paid Rs.9000/- as monthly salary at the time of termination. The Labour Court allowed part claim of the petitioner and thereby caused serious injustice to the petitioner.

8. During pendency of the proceeding as initiated subsequently, the management paid the amount as determined by the Learned Labour Court in earlier proceeding of Case No. Comp. 15 of 2018 and the petitioner had to receive the said amount recording strong objection.

9. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 09.02.2022 in Computation Case No. 15 of 2018 and order dated 16.04.2024 passed in Computation Case No. 22 of 2021.

10. The learned Judge, Labour Court, West Bengal in Computation Case No. 15 of 2018 under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act directed as follows:-

“……….Considering evidences on record including Annexure-A and exhibited documents, the instant application U/S 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 as filed by the applicant for re