Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 683 (CAL)

Belle Vue Clinic v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2005-11-09

JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA

body2005
Judgment :- (1.) A dispute case under section 10(1B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was initiated at the instance of the respondent No. 4 before the learned Judge, 2nd Labour Court, West Bengal giving rise to Case No.76/01 under section 10 (1B)(d) of the said Act. (2.) By an order being No.6 dated 6.9.2005 passed by the learned Judge, 2nd Labour Court, the writ petitioner No.1 was directed to file written statement in connection with the said proceeding on 28.9.2005 which was a date also fixed for framing of issues. The said date was subsequently deferred to 10.11.2005. (3.) A preliminary objection has been raised by the writ petitioners before this Court as to the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to entertain such a dispute on the ground that the respondent No.4 being not a workman within the meaning of the definition of section 2 (s) of the said Act, cannot maintain such a proceeding before the Labour Court. (4.) Mr. Bhattacharya, learned senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioners, submits that in view of the provisions contained in section 10(1B) of the said Act, the Labour Court can decide such a dispute only if it is found that the respondent No.l who raised such a dispute is a workman within the meaning of the said Act. Thus, Mr. Bhattacharya submits that since a preliminary objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to entertain such a dispute has been raised in the said proceeding, the learned Judge of the Labour Court should have decided the said dispute first as a preliminary issue before passing of a direction upon the writ petitioners for filing of Written Statement in the said proceeding. (5.) Mr.Dasgupta, learned Advocate, appearing for the respondent No.4 submits that the said respondent who was given employment under the petitioner, is no doubt a workman within the meaning of the said Act. (6.) Mr. Dasgupta further submits that since the respondent No.4 is a workman within the meaning of the said Act, the Labour Court has every jurisdiction to enter into the merit of the dispute raised by the respondent No.4 before the Labour Court in the said proceeding. As such, Mr. Dasgupta supports the order passed by the learned Judge, 2nd Labour Court, which is impugned in this writ petition. As such, Mr. Dasgupta supports the order passed by the learned Judge, 2nd Labour Court, which is impugned in this writ petition. (7.) After hearing the learned Advocates of the parties and after considering the materials on record, it appears that a dispute has been raised as to whether the respondent No.4 is a workman within the meaning of the said Act or not. (8.) Undisputedly, the Labour Court can enter into the merit of such an industrial dispute only when it is found that such a dispute was raised by the workman. Thus, the jurisdiction to consider the dispute which is raised by the respondent No.4 before the Labour Court depends upon the determination of the issue as to whether the respondent No. 4 is a workman or not within the meaning of the said Act. (9.) Since such a dispute is raised in connection with the said proceeding, I dispose of this writ petition by direction of the learned Judge, 2nd Labour Court, to frame a preliminary issue as to whether the respondent No.4 is a workman or not within the meaning of section 2(s) of the said Act and to decide the said issue first before entering into the merit of the said proceeding. (10.) Needless to mention here that if the learned Judge, 2nd Labour Court ultimately finds that the respondent No.4 is a workman within the meaning of the said Act then the said learned Judge will enter into the merit of the said proceeding in accordance with law and will dispose of the same with utmost expedition. (11.) The direction for filing written statement by the petitioner as given by the learned Labour Court in the order impugned will remain stayed until the said preliminary issue is determined in the manner, as aforesaid. (12.) The impugned order is thus modified to the above extent. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible. Writ petition disposed of.