Calcutta High Court: In a criminal revision against the judgment and order dated 08-08-2019, passed by the City Sessions Court at Calcutta, affirming the Order dated 11-01-2019, by the Metropolitan Magistrate against a complaint under Section 33-C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act), against the petitioner, a single-judge bench comprising of Shampa Dutt (Paul),* J., affirmed the lower court orders, upholding the liability of the petitioner under Section 32 of the Act. The Court underscored the importance of timely compliance with compensation orders under the Act and discouraged abuse of the legal process.
Factual Matrix
In the instant matter, the petitioner-accused company filed a revision against the judgment and order dated 08-08-2019, passed by the City Sessions Court at Calcutta affirming the order dated 11-01-2019, issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, concerning criminal revision under Section 33-C(1) of the Act.
The Assistant Labour Commissioner, West Bengal, initiated a complaint under Section 33C(1) of the Act, against the petitioner. On 16-11-2013, a report on the service of summons against the accused company was received by the Trial Magistrate. Subsequently, an order of attachment was issued against the accused company. On 11-01-2019, the Trial Magistrate received a report from Burrabazar Police Station, stating that a significant portion of 71, Canning Street (Bagri Market) was burnt due to a fire incident on16-09-2018, including the office. The magistrate then directed the issuance of summons against the director of the accused company. The petitioner challenged the Order dated 11-01-2019, through a revision petition before the City Sessions Court at Calcutta, which was dismissed on 08-08-2019.
Petitioner’s Contentions
The petitioner challenged the summoning order contenting that a major portion of the company’s premises was destroyed by fire, rendering it vacant. The petitioner contended that it was not initially made a party, and the Trial Court proceeded against the director under Section 32 of the Act.
Legal Provisions
-
Section 33C(1) of the Act empowers a Labor Court to decide questions related to the recovery of money due to a workman from an employer.
-
Section 32 of the Act establishes liability for offenses committed by companies holding directors, managers, etc., responsible unless they can prove lack of knowledge or consent.
-
Section 29 of the Act outlines penalties for breaches of settlements or awards.
Court’s Assessment
The Court rejected the petitioner’s contention regarding non-inclusion as a party, citing Section 32 of the Act, which empowered the Magistrate to proceed against the director. The Court upheld the applicability of Section 32 of the Act, emphasising the petitioner’s liability as a director.
While referring the Compensation order, initially passed by the First Labour Court in 2007, the Court highlight the extended duration of the workman’s pursuit of lawful dues and despite the passage of sixteen years, the workman has not received the due compensation. The Court deemed the petitioner’s delay in payment since 2007 an abuse of the legal process, emphasising the beneficial nature of the legislation for the workmen.
“Sixteen years have passed the workman here is running from pillar to post since 2007 to get the benefit lawfully due to him under a beneficial legislation, which the accused persons have been denying in spite of being liable under the act to pay the dues.”
Court’s Decision
The Court dismissed the revision petition, affirming the orders dated 08-08-2019, and 11-01-2019. The Trial Court was directed to dispose of the case within three months from the date of this order. No costs were awarded, and all connected applications are disposed of. Interim orders, if any, were vacated.
[Sanjay Chhajer v. State of W.B., 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 4748, order dated 01-12-2023]
*Judgment by Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Ayan Bhattacharjee, Mr. Indrajit Adhikari, Mr. Sharequl Haque and Ms. Ritu Das, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Arijit Ganguly, Counsel for the Respondent/State
