Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2007)3CALLT620(HC),2008(1)CHN74,[2008(116)FLR751],(2008)IILLJ110Cal
Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. A point of principle arises, though the sum involved in this case is the princely amount of Rs. 1323.80. The point has arisen in a number of matters. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner seeks an adjudication whether provident fund dues of all employees of a company in liquidation should stand on the same footing as workmen's dues.2. Sections 529, 529A and 530 need first to be seen to appreciate the issue involved:529. Application of insolvency rules in winding up of insolvent companies.-(1) In the winding up of an insolvent company, the same rules shall prevail and be observed with regard to:(a) debts provable;(b) the valuation of annuities and future and contingent liabilities; and(c) the respective rights of secured and unsecured creditors; as are in force for the time being under the law of insolvency with respect to the Estates of persons adjudged insolvent:Provided that the security of every secured creditor shall be deemed to be subject to a pari passu ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1957Cal347
ORDERSinha, J. 1. The petitioner in this case is Messrs. Bharat Glass Works (Private) Ltd. It carries on business as manufacturers and producers of glass and ceramics, having its factory at Belkhoris in the 24 parganas. On or about the 11th December, 1954 the respondent No. 4, the Bharat Glass Workers' Union, claiming to represent the workers of the petitioner-company, put forward a charter of demand. The demands were pretty exhaustive, but it is unnecessary for our purposes to deal with the nature thereof. The Govt, of West Bengal, by an order dated the 17th June, 1955 referred certain disputes between the petitioner-company and its workers, for adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. A copy of the Order of Reference is annexed to the petition and marked as Exhibit B. The petitioner-company appeared before the Tribunal, respondent No. 3 in this case, and took a preliminary objection to jurisdiction. The objection was that as the petitioner was carrying on a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1994)IILLJ964Cal
Susanta Chatterjee, J. 1. The present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India at the instance of the applicant challenges the Award dated May 31, 1991 of the Industrial Tribunal, Port Blair pursuant to the reference dated April 25, 1990 under Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, since made by the Lt. Governor (Administrator). Andaman and Nicobar Islands for adjudication of the dispute;'Whether the action of the Executive Engineer, Electricity Department, Rural Division, Rangat in retrenching 273 workmen with effect from April 1, 1989 is legal and justified, and if not, to what relief, are the concerned workmen entitled?'2. The Presiding Officer considered three issues:(1) Is the reference maintainable? (2) Were the workmen retrenched as stated by the first party? If so, was the retrenchment with effect from April 1, 1989 legal and justified? (3) To what relief, if' any, are the first party workmen entitled? 3. Assigning the reasons the Presiding Office...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1998)ILLJ654Cal
1. The basic issue involved in this appeal is whether an order dismissing an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (referred to as the Act) is an 'award' directing 'reinstatement' within the meaning of the phrase under Section 17B of the Act.2. The issue arises out of the dismissal of the respondent No. 3 from service by the appellant. According to the appellant the respondent No. 3 refused to abide by a transfer order and used abusive language against the management. According to the respondent No. 3 the transfer order was issued mala fide. A show- cause notice was issued by the appellant to the respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 answered this but did not participate in the inquiry proceedings. On the basis of the enquiry report the order of dismissal was passed by the appellant. According to the appellant immediately thereafter one month's wage was sent to the respondent No. 3 and an application was made under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act before t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2008(4)CHN567,[2008(119)FLR545],(2009)ILLJ747Cal
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. Hotel Hindusthan International is a five star hotel situated in the southern part of Calcutta. There were 406 employees at the relevant time. The appellant is a registered trade union being affiliated to Centre of Indian Trade Unions ('CITU') whereas the respondent No. 4 in A.P.O. No. 454 of 2006 is another registered trade union being affiliated to Indian National Trade Union Congress ('INTUC'). Both the unions claimed that they had the majority support of the workers. Disputes arose in September, 2003 when the appellant raised an industrial dispute with regard to payment of bonus. Management did not adhere to their charter of demand as according to the management they had already entered into a bipartite settlement with the other union being the respondent No. 4 and all 406 numbers of employees accepted the benefit derived out of the said bipartite settlement. The appellants resorted to demonstration. The management approached the learned Single Judge by fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2004)2CALLT25(HC),[2004(102)FLR430]
Amitava Lala, J.1. The learned Judge of the 8th Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal was in the seisen of an industrial dispute referred by the appropriate authority of the Labour Department, Government of West Bengal vide letter dated 19th April, 1999. The issues under such order of reference are as follows:'(1) Whether denial of permanency to Shri Ashok Kumar Prosad by the Management is justified?(2) To what relief, if any, is he entitled?'2. The Tribunal ultimately held by its award dated 22nd March, 2001 on the basis of the Division Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court reported in 2001(1) LLJ 280 (Management of Panchamalai Estate v. D. Gnanasekharan) that law nowhere states that if the person has worked for more than 240 days in a year he is entitled to be regularised in service. Provision contained in Chapter V of the Industrial Disputes Act had been enacted merely to protect the right of the workmen from being illegally dismissed from the service. Section 25 of the said Act does...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2002)IIILLJ122Cal
D.K. Seth, J.1. In this writ petition the following prayers have been made:a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to show cause as to why the copy of the certified standing order, as claimed by the Company should not be supplied to the petitioner; b) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents to withdraw and/or rescind and/or cancel the existing Private Service Rules entirely inconsistent with the model standing orders; c) A writ in the nature of Certiorari directing the respondents to transmit and/or produce, the certified standing order if any before this Hon'ble Court. 2. In the pleadings the writ petitioners have alleged that though standing orders have since been framed for the working journalists under the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955 but no standing order, which is mandatory under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, have been framed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2001)IILLJ1153Cal
S.B. Sinha, J.1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated March 8, 2000 passed in Writ Petition No. 10214(W) of 1998 whereby and whereunder the writ application filed by the respondents herein was allowed.2. The writ petitioners were appointed by the Councillors in a meeting held on September 26, 1997 in terms of Resolution No. 36 which reads thus:'With the consent of all the Councillors present in the meeting the matter of engagement of field personnel @ 2 per Ward as per instruction of the C.V.B. is discussed. It is resolved that 42 field. personnel i.e. @2 per Ward be engaged for assessment work on daily rated basis.'3. Pursuant to the said resolution they had been issued with an offer of appointment, a sample copy whereof is Memo No. 2772/CA/42 dated September 9, 1997 which reads thus:'You have been selected to work as field Assistant/Helper in connection with the field survey work to be undertaken by the C.V.B., West Bengal from September 21, 1997 for valuation o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1997)1CALLT243(HC),1997(1)CHN454,(1997)IILLJ80Cal
Ruma Pal. J. 1. The issue before this Court is whether a Tribunal can refuse to dispose of an application for interim relief under Section 15(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) until the workman files the written statement.2. Before considering the issues, I must say that I am baffled by the reluctance shown in this case by the workman to file a written statement, Ordinarily the delay in disposing of an Industrial Dispute is attributed to the employer who would be interested in defeating the outcome of the dispute by exhausting the workman. In this case admittedly the workman was served with the charge sheet on June 29, 1991. The charges are serious ones. The domestic enquiry was held between July 10, 1991 to October 5, 1993. The Enquiry Officer found the workman guilty. On November 16, 1993 the employee was dismissed. According to the employer this was done on a consideration of the report of the Enquiry Officer, records, documents, and the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [2000(84)FLR92],(2000)ILLJ903Cal
P.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an application filed by the petitioners inter alia praying for the following relief:-(a) A writ of and/or in the nature of certiorari do issue calling upon the respondent Authorities and each of them to certify and transmit to this Hon'ble Court the records of the case culminating in the order dated January 5, 1999 passed by the respondent No. 2 forwarded by the said letter dated January 14, 1999 by the respondent No. 3 so that upon consideration thereof the same may be quashed and conscionable justice may be rendered to the petitioner.(b) A writ of or in the nature of mandamus do issue commanding the respondents and each of them to -(i) Forthwith rescind, revoke, withdraw or cancel the aforesaid order dated January 5, 1999 passed by the respondent No. 2 and forwarded to the petitioner No. 1 by the respondent No. 3.(ii) Grant permission to the petitioner No. 1 to implement the scheme of lay-off as proposed in its application before the respondent No. 2. (c) Rul...
Tag this Judgment!