Calcutta High Court
Julien Day School vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 6 May, 2009
Author: Pratap Kumar Ray
Bench: Pratap Kumar Ray
GA No. 1149 of 2009
APO No. 90 of 2009 with
WP No. 1262 of 2004
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
JULIEN DAY SCHOOL Plaintiff/Petitioner/Applicant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. Defendant/Respondent
For Appellant/Petitioner : MR. HIRAK MITRA,MR. SOMEN SEN,MR. SOUMYA MAJUMDAR For Defendant/Respondent : MR. PARTHA BHANJA CHOWDHURY BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE PRATAP KUMAR RAY The Hon'ble JUSTICE PRANAB KUMAR DEB Date : 6th May, 2009.
The Court : Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.
Challenging the judgment and order dated 6th March, 2009 passed by the Learned Trial Judge in W.P No. 1262 of 2004, this appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner, M/s Julien Day School. The award passed by the learned Tribunal on 20th May, 2004 granting relief of reinstatement and back wages on quashing the order of termination was the subject matter of challenge in the writ application. Learned Trial Judge dismissed the writ application. Prima facie it appears that the Learned Tribunal while passing the order of back wages did not assign any reason discussing entitlement of back wages on the settled legal proposition that grant of back wages is not automatic 2 outcome but it requires an adjudication particularly on the issue as to whether the concerned workman was gainfully employed during the period of unemployment resulting from termination of service. Reliance is placed on the judgment passed in the case of Allahabad Jalasanasthan vs. Dayasankar Rai reported in (2005) 5 SCC 124 and Novortis India Ltd. vs. State of West Bengal reported in (2009) 3 SCC 124. Furthermore it appears from the award of the Tribunal that issues involved therein about the stand of the school as taken that as the workman became surplus, the service was terminated, require a proper appreciation and adjudication on hearing the appeal. Learned Advocate for the workman respondent however has contended that considering the workman's unemployment status the interim relief was granted by the Tribunal and subsequently under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, the writ Court also passed the similar decision. Be that as it may, this point is to be considered at the time of final disposal of the appeal.
As such, we are of the view that there should be stay of the impugned judgment under appeal including the award of the learned Tribunal for a limited period till 22nd June, 2009. Let there be affidavit-in-opposition to the stay application by one week from date; reply thereto, if any, be filed within a week thereafter. In view of the point involved for adjudication in this appeal, we are of the view that appeal should be heard expeditiously.
As all the parties are appearing, particularly the contesting parties, service of notice of appeal and other formalities stand dispensed with. Let informal paper book be filed before the Court and be served to the respondent workmen.
The appeal is posted for final disposal on 17th June, 2009 as a first item at 10.30 A.M. Stay application will also be considered along with the appeal.3
All parties concerned are to act on a signed xerox copy of this order on the usual undertakings.
(PRATAP KUMAR RAY, J.) (PRANAB KUMAR DEB, J.) TR/