S/L 9+10

04.03.2025 Court. No. 551 Sourav WPA 5573 of 2016 With CAN 1 of 2016 (Old No. CAN 3496 of 2016)

With CAN 2 of 2016 (Old No. CAN 3497 of 2016)

With CAN 3 of 2024 The Statesman Limited Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

With CRR 1719 of 2024 Swapan Kumar Das Vs.

State of West Bengal & Anr.

Mr. Soumya Majumder, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Sakabda Roy Ms. Supriya Ranjan Saha … for the petitioner in WPA 5573 of 2016 and for the respondent in CRR 1719 of 2024.

Mr. Anirban Kar Mr. Munshi Ashiq Elahi Ms. Snigdha Das Mr. Rohit Mahato … for the respondent no. 3 to 7 and 10 in WPA 5573 of 2016 and for the petitioner in CRR 1719 of 2024.

Mr. Barnamoy Basak Mr. Ajitesh Pandey … for the respondent no. 8.

In Re: CAN 1 of 2016 (Old No. CAN 3496 of 2016)

With CAN 2 of 2016 (Old No. CAN 3497 of 2016)

1. These two application have been preferred by the respondent nos. 5 and 3 respectively, namely; Surya Bhan Pandey and Ashok Kumar Pandey seeking relief under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’ in short).

2. By filing the instant two petitions, the aforementioned two respondents have prayed for an appropriate order directing the writ petitioner to disburse the last drawn wages of the said respondents from the date of filing of the instant writ petition till disposal of the same in favour of the said respondents.

3. In support of the instant two petitions, Mr. Kar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 3 and 5 at the very outset draws attention of this Court to the Order No. 184 dated 07.08.2014 as passed in connection with the Case No. 01/2003/33(2)(b) (M/s. Statesman Limited Vs. Their Workmen) by the learned Judge, 1st Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata. It is submitted by Mr. Kar that from the said order dated 07.08.2014, it would reveal that the said Tribunal dismissed the writ petitioner’s application under Section 33(2)(b) of the said Act. It is thus, submitted by Mr. Kar that by the order under challenge, the said Tribunal thus did not accord to the prayer as made by the writ petitioner/company towards dismissal of the respondents of the present writ petition.

4. In his next limb of submission, Mr. Kar draws attention of this Court to the provision of Section 17B of the said Act. It is submitted by Mr. Kar that from the provision of Section 17B of the said Act, it would reveal that it is the intention of the legislature that in any case, a labour Court, a Tribuanl or a National Tribunal by its award directs reinstatement of any workman and the employer prefers any proceeding against such award in the High Court, the employer is duty bound to pay to such workman during the pendency of such proceeding in the High Court full wages last drawn by him inclusive of any maintenance allowances admissible to him under any rule in the event, the workmen have not been employed in any establishment during such period and to that extent, an affidavit has been filed by such workmen in such Court.

5. Drawing attention to the instant two petitions under consideration, it is submitted by Mr. Kar that from the pleadings as made in the instant two petitions, it would reveal that both the respondent nos. 3 and 5 had categorically averred that after their dismissal from the writ petitioner/company, they were not in any gainful employment anywhere and they are leading their life in a miserable condition.

6. In course of his submission, Mr. Kar also places reliance upon a Full Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Vs. Ram Gopal Sharma & Ors. reported in 2002 (2) SCC 244. It is submitted by Mr. Kar that in the said reported decision of Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank (Supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court came to a finding that when an order of dismissal is passed by a Labour Court in relation to an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the said Act, it tantamounts to non-approval to the order of dismissal as sought for by the employer and thus, there is no n