Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court

Indofil Chemicals Co. & Anr vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 20 February, 2014

Author: Arindam Sinha

Bench: Arindam Sinha

                       ORDER SHEET
                     WP No.492 of 2005
             IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
               Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
                      ORIGINAL SIDE


               INDOFIL CHEMICALS CO. & ANR.
                         Versus
              STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.


BEFORE:

The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA

Date : 20th February, 2014.


                     Appearance:

                     Mr. Soumya Majumdar, Advocate
                     Mr. R.K.Khanna, Advocate
                     Mr. Agnibesh Sengupta, Advocate
                     for the petitioners

                     Ms. Anandamoyee Ghosh, Advocate
                     for respondent No.3

Ms. Paramita Pal, Advocate for the State Dr. Barindra Narayan Roy, Advocate for the workmen The Court: Mr. Majumdar, learned Advocate, appears on behalf of the writ petitioner and submits that the challenge to the award dated 10th November, 2004 made by the Second Industrial Tribunal 2 directing reinstatement of the workman and payment of back-wages is three fold. Firstly the dispute raised was by an individual workman regarding whether or not he ought to have been granted permanent status of employment, being a dispute that cannot be raised by an individual workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This was a point of demurrer taken by his client which was not addressed by the learned Tribunal. The next point urged by Mr. Majundar is that the tests regarding a claim for retrenchment requiring pleading and proof, that, inter alia, the workmen had served for the requisite number of days had not been adjudicated upon by the learned Tribunal. The last point urged by Mr. Majumdar is that in the matter of relief granted for back-wages the learned Tribunal did not adhere to the procedure of requiring the minimum of pleading and proof that the complainant workman was not otherwise gainfully employed in the period of forced unemployment.

Ms. Paramita Pal, learned Advocate on behalf of the State, prays for adjournment for a period of two weeks to take instructions in the matter. She submits that she has only been briefed for the purpose of the restoration application that was since disposed of on 13th February, 2014. Hence she prays adjournment for supply of 3 copy of the writ petition to be made so that she can seek necessary instructions from the State.

The petitioner is, therefore, directed to serve copy of the petition upon the Advocate on record for the State of West Bengal acting on the Original Side by tomorrow.

The points raised have been formulated by this Court for the purpose of the respondents getting ready with their response for the matter to be heard on the adjourned date being 11th March, 2014 when the writ petition will be taken up for hearing and disposed of.

(ARINDAM SINHA, J.) G/