Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Paritosh Kumar Mitra & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 3 May, 2016
Author: Sudip Ahluwalia
Bench: Sudip Ahluwalia
1
3.5.2016
S.D.
W.P. 31819 (W) of 2014
Paritosh Kumar Mitra & Ors.
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
Ms. Debjani Sengupta
Ms. Julekha Khatun
...For the Petitioners.
Mr. Surajit Sen
Mrs. Nairita Datta Chowdhury
...For the Respondent Nos. 4, 5 & 6.
The writ petitioners in this matter were serving as well as retired employees of M/s. Hindustan Cable Litd., a Government of India undertaking. It transpires that in the meantime all of them have since retired from their respective employment. Their grievance was that their aforesaid employer (respondent no. 2) did not make payment of their salaries and other allowances after each relevant employee attained the age of 58 years, although he or she did continue in service till attaining the age of 60 years. The age of retirement according to the writ petitioners is 60 years and superannuation notices were also issued to the concerned employees before their attaining such age.
2It may be mentioned that earlier on the 17th March 2015, His Lordship Sanjib Banerjee, J. while entertaining the matter had also directed the B.I.F.R. to indicate the status of the reference pertaining to the respondent company. No report in that regard was, however, forthcoming in spite of service.
It has been pointed out on behalf of the petitioners that a similar writ petition against the same respondents was filed on behalf of the certain other employees whose wages were not paid after they had attained the age of 58 years, even though they continued to remain in employment till the age of 60 years. The aforesaid Writ Petition (W.P. No. 14269 (W) of 2010) was dismissed by the Trial Court. But the employees preferred appeal against the Trial Court's judgment. The same was allowed by virtue of the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court on the 13th September 2011 in F.M.A. No. 715 of 2011. A copy of the relevant judgment is on record as annexure "P 13" to the Writ Petition No. 31819 (W) of 2014, and annexure "P 19"in W.P. No. 29486 (W) of 2014. The case of the present writ petitioners is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench, against which 3 Special Leave Petitions were preferred on behalf of the respondents in the Hon'ble Supreme Court being S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 23987-23988 of 2012. But those Special Leave Petitions were dismissed by the Apex Court on 26th February 2013.
It may be further mentioned that another writ petition on the same facts of allegations by another set of employees being W.P. No. 3572 (W) of 2012 was allowed by a Single Bench of this Court (Sambuddha Chakraborty, J.) by His Lordship's judgment delivered on the 19th June 2015.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the aforesaid judgment of the Single Bench has been appealed against, and the Appeals are pending before the Division Bench presided over by the Hon'ble Chief Justice being the appeal nos. M.A.T. 1446 of 2015 with CAN 9278 of 2015 with M.A.T. 1860 of 2015 with CAN 11925 of 2015 with CAN 11926 of 2015 with CAN 11926 of 2015.
Admittedly no stay order in any of those appeals has been passed, even though the same were filed last year.
This Court, therefore, has no scope to deviate from the decision of the Division Bench in W.P. No. 29486 (W) of 2014, 4 against which the S.L.P. preferred by the respondents was also dismissed. The subsequent decision of the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 3572 (W) of 2012 also comprehensively covers the case of the writ petitioners.
In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the respondent company is directed to take necessary steps for payment of the admissible dues to the petitioners who have already retired from service and to release their unpaid salaries and allowances as admissible to them till they attained the age of superannuation, i.e. 60 years.
Such steps are to be taken within a period of ten weeks from the date of communication of this order.
However, in case of petitioner nos. 7, 8, 19, 22, 25 and 33, such pay and allowances would be payable only till the end of February 2015, in view of the Statements made in paragraph 6 (l) on page of the affidavit-in-reply.
Needless to mention, if necessary, the respondent no. 1 shall provide the requisite financial assistance to the respondent company for making necessary payment to the writ petitioners in terms of this order if the respondent no. 1 is 5 otherwise obliged to bear the financial burden of the company in this regard.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all requisite formalities.
(Sudip Ahluwalia, J.)