Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 259 (CAL)

Statesman Limited v. State of West Bengal

2025-07-09

PARTHA SARATHI SEN

body2025
JUDGMENT : Partha Sarathi Sen, J. 1. This interlocutory application is at the instance of the respondent nos.3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 10 of the instant writ petition wherein several prayers have been made. However, for the time being Mr. Kar, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the said respondents has pressed for prayer 'c', that is, for an order of injunction restraining a third party, namely, Merlin Projects Limited from making payments from their current account no.925020010822018 maintained with the Axis Bank at 85, Prince Anwar Shah Road, Kolkata – 700 033 in favour of the writ petitioner. 2. At the very outset it is pertinent to mention herein that the subject matter of challenge of the instant writ petition is an order dated 07.08.2014 as passed by the First Industrial Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'said tribunal') in Case No.01/2003/33(2)(b) in a proceeding under Section 33 (2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'), whereby and whereunder the said tribunal declined to accord approval as sought for by the writ petitioner for dismissal of the present respondents. 3. In course of hearing, Mr. Kar, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the aforementioned respondents while drawing attention to page no.6 of the instant writ petition contended that in a proceeding under Section 33 (C)(2) several awards have been passed by the learned Judge, First Labour Court, Kolkata in different cases under the said section, particulars of which have been mentioned in paragraph 7 of the instant application. 4. It is submitted that challenging the said award the writ petitioner/company approached a coordinate Bench of this Court, however, failed to obtain a favourable order and further despite direction passed by the said coordinate Bench on 12.07.2023 in WPA No.25868 of 2018, the writ petitioner/company has failed and neglected to secure the sum of Rs.17,80,218/- which was directed to be deposited with the office of the learned Registrar General of this High Court. 5. In his next fold of submission Mr. 5. In his next fold of submission Mr. Kar further submits that since the awards as passed by the said Labour Court in a proceeding under Section 33 (C)(2) of the said Act was not fulfilled by making payment, execution cases have been started before the jurisdictional Metropolitan Magistrate (now Judicial Magistrate), Calcutta and those are still pending and in the said execution proceedings even after issuance of order of attachment against the writ petitioner/company, the writ petitioner/company has failed and neglected to make payment to the aforementioned respondents herein in compliance of the awards as passed by the said Labour Court. 6. Drawing attention to Annexure – Q to the instant interlocutory application, being a copy of registered deed of conveyance dated 27.06.2025 as has been executed by and between the Statesman Limited (the writ petitioner herein) as vendor/owner and one Merlin Projects Limited as developer it is submitted by Mr. Kar that even during validity of the order of attachment as passed by the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate, such transaction took place in order to deprive the present respondents from their legitimate dues. 7. It is further submitted by Mr. Kar that it has come to the knowledge of the present respondents that the consideration money as payable by the said Merlin Projects Limited to the writ petitioner herein has not yet been disbursed and the said amount is still lying in the aforementioned current account of Merlin Projects Limited. 8. It is, thus, submitted by Mr. Kar that in the event the said Merlin Projects Limited is not injuncted by way of temporary injunction from disbursing the said amount in favour of the present writ petitioner, there is least possibility that the present respondents would get their awarded amount despite pendency of the execution proceedings after dismissal of the writ petition and the intra-court appeal challenging the said award. 9. Mr. Chowdhury, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the Merlin Projects Limited on being asked by this Court on instruction submits before this Court that as on this day approximately Rs.15 crores are due and payable to the writ petitioner herein by his client on account of execution of the said registered deed of conveyance dated 27.06.2025. It is further submitted by Mr. It is further submitted by Mr. Chowdhury upon instruction from his client, that is, Merlin Projects Limited is ready and willing to deposit a sum of Rs.2,08,59,228.38/- with the office of the learned Registrar General, High Court at Calcutta after debiting the amount from the money payable to the writ petitioner herein on account of their dues by virtue of the said registered deed dated 27.06.2025. 10. Per contra, Mr. Roy, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner while opposing the prayers as made in the instant interlocutory petition disputed the submission of Mr. Chowdhury regarding the amount as claimed to have been due and payable to the writ petitioner by the Merlin Projects Limited. Mr. Roy further submits that the very genesis of the registered deed dated 27.06.2025 is also disputed by the writ petitioner. 11. In course of his submission, Mr. Roy also raises the preliminary point of maintainability of the instant interlocutory application being CAN 6 of 2025. It is submitted by Mr. Roy that the instant interlocutory application is frivolous, inasmuch as, such an application has been filed where the subject matter of challenge is an order under the proviso of Section 33 (2)(b) of the said Act, whereby and whereunder the said tribunal refused to accord permission for dismissal of the workmen who are the respondents before this Court. 12. In his next limb of submission, Mr. Roy further contended that for the alleged non-compliance of the order as passed by the Labour Court in a proceeding under Section 33 (C)(2) of the said Act, execution cases have been initiated and, therefore, there cannot be any justification to seek an injunction as prayed for when the jurisdictional executing court(s) is/are in seisin over the matter. 13. It is, thus, submitted by Mr. Roy that no injunction order even no interim order of injunction may be passed. 14. This Court has meticulously gone through the entire materials as placed before this Court. This Court has given due consideration over the submission of the learned advocates for the contending parties. 15. For effective adjudication of the instant interlocutory application this Court at the very outset proposes to look to some of the relevant provisions of the said Act which are quoted hereinbelow in verbatim:- “ 33.Conditions of service, etc., to remain unchanged under certain circumstances during pendency of proceedings.- (1) …………………………………. 15. For effective adjudication of the instant interlocutory application this Court at the very outset proposes to look to some of the relevant provisions of the said Act which are quoted hereinbelow in verbatim:- “ 33.Conditions of service, etc., to remain unchanged under certain circumstances during pendency of proceedings.- (1) …………………………………. (2) During the pendency of any such proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute, the employer may, in accordance with standing orders applicable to a workman concerned in such dispute or, where there are no such standing orders, in accordance with the terms of the contract, whether express or implied, between him and the workman - (a) alter, in regard to any matter not connected with the dispute, the conditions of service applicable to that workman immediately before the commencement of such proceeding; or (b) for any misconduct not connected with the dispute, discharge or punish, whether by dismissal or otherwise, that workman: Provided that no such workman shall be discharged or dismissed, unless he has been paid wages for one month and an application has been made by the employer to the authority before which the proceeding is pending for approval of the action taken by the employer. (3) ……………………………. (4) ……………………………. (5) ……………………………..” 16. Section 33 (C) of the said Act is as under:- “ 33C. Recovery of money due from an employer. (1) ………………………………. (2) Where any workman is entitled to receive from an employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and if any question arises as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which such benefit should be computed, then the question may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act be decided by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government within a period not exceeding three months. provided that where the presiding officer of a Labour Court considers it necessary or expedient so to do, he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend such period by such further period as he may think fit. (3) …………………………….. (4) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the appropriate Government and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in sub-section (I). (5) …………………………….” 17. (3) …………………………….. (4) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the appropriate Government and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in sub-section (I). (5) …………………………….” 17. Keeping in mind the aforementioned legislative mandate if I look to the factual aspects as involved in the instant writ petition as well as in CAN 6 of 2025 it appears to this Court that the subject matter of challenge in the instant writ petition is the order as passed by the tribunal under the proviso of Section 33 (2)(b) of the said Act, whereby and whereunder the said tribunal did not accord approval to the writ petitioner/company for dismissing the respondents who are the workmen of the writ petitioner/company. 18. Materials have been placed before this Court on behalf of the respondents herein that in a proceeding under Section 33 (C)(2) of the said Act a Labour Court of Kolkata passed an award in favour of the present respondents who are the petitioners in CAN 6 of 2025. Further materials have also been placed before this Court that out of the said awarded amount only a paltry sum was paid to the award holders and the remaining amount is still due. 19. Sufficient materials have also been placed before this Court that for non-compliance of the said award as passed by the Labour Court, Kolkata execution cases are pending before the jurisdictional Magistrates. This Court is apprised of the facts that the jurisdictional Magistrates are in seisin of the execution proceedings. 20. At this juncture, the moot question arises for consideration as to whether a writ court sitting in a judicial review over the correctness of the order as passed in a proceeding under the proviso clause of Section 33 (2)(b) of the said Act is at all empowered to entertain an application like a garnishee proceeding wherein an injunction order has been sought for restraining a third party (Merlin Projects Limited) from making payment to the award debtor that is the writ petitioner herein. 21. 21. After careful consideration of the entire materials, this Court is of considered view that the instant introductory application is not at all maintainable before this Court in view of the fact that, this Court while sitting in a Court of judicial review is not dealing with the order and/or award as has been passed by a Labour Court under Section 33 (C)(2) of the said Act. On the contrary this Court is in a judicial review over the correctness of the order as passed in a proceeding under the proviso of Section 33 (2) of the said Act. 22. It appears to this Court that for non-fulfilling the award as passed by the Labour Court execution cases are pending before the jurisdictional Magistrates and, therefore, it appears to this Court that the present respondents who are the petitioners in the present interlocutory application is not the forumless. 23. This Court, thus, considers that the present respondents of the instant writ petition have chosen a wrong forum with a prayer which cannot be entertained by this Court. 24.With the aforementioned observation, CAN 6 of 2025 is dismissed. In Re: WPA 5573 of 2016 25.Let the matter be listed on July 22, 2025 as a “Specially Fixed Matter” with the mark 2.00 p.m.