Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Board Of Trustees For Shyama Prasad ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 January, 2021
Author: Rajasekhar Mantha
Bench: Rajasekhar Mantha
27.01.2021
Ct. No.13
Sl. No.39
akd
W.P.A. 10687 of 2020 [via video conference]
[Board of Trustees for Shyama Prasad Mookerjee Port, Kolkata & Anr. -Vs-
Union of India & Ors.]
Mr. Joydeep Kar .. Sr. Advocate
Mr. Pronit Bag
Mr. Soumen Ghosh
Mr. Snehashis Sen
Mr. Abhishek Banerjee
... ... for the petitioners
Dr. Madhusudan Saha Roy
Mr. Ranjit Kumar Ghosh
Mr. Pranab Kumar Ghosh
... for respondent-workmen
Affidavit-of-service filed in court today be kept with the record.
The Board of Trustees for Shyama Prasad Mookerjee Port, Kolkata are aggrieved by an award passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata dated 19.12.2019 in Reference Case No.10 of 2002.
The brief facts of the case are, inter alia, that the respondent-workmen were engaged by a club that is located in the Haldia Dock Complex under the control of the Port Trust authorities. The Tribunal has directed permanent absorption of such respondent-workmen with the Port Trust.
Mr. Joydeep Kar, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the order of the Tribunal is perverse.
It is submitted that the service conditions of the employees of the Port Trust do not warrant a club facility and that the club membership is open to persons who are not employees of the Kolkata Port Trust or Haldia Dock Complex. 2 It is further submitted that there is little or no control over the administration of the club by the Port Trust.
This matter is required to be decided on affidavits. Since Mr. Kar, learned senior advocate fairly submits to court that the respondent-workmen are even today in the engagement of the club and/or the guest house, there is no need for any interim order at this stage.
The respondent-workmen shall continue being engaged in the manner that they have been and in terms of their letters of engagement.
Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed within a period of four weeks from date. Reply, if any, be filed two weeks thereafter.
Liberty is granted to the learned advocate for the petitioner to mention the matter for early hearing after completion of pleadings.
(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)