{"id":308371,"date":"2023-12-04T16:00:50","date_gmt":"2023-12-04T10:30:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=308371"},"modified":"2023-12-07T17:21:37","modified_gmt":"2023-12-07T11:51:37","slug":"cal-hc-affirms-directors-liability-under-section-32-of-industrial-disputes-act-1947-scc-blog","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/04\/cal-hc-affirms-directors-liability-under-section-32-of-industrial-disputes-act-1947-scc-blog\/","title":{"rendered":"Calcutta High Court affirms Director\u2019s liability under Section 32 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; directs compliance of compensation order"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Calcutta High Court:<\/span> 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)<\/a> of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947<\/a> (the Act), against the petitioner, a single-judge bench comprising of Shampa Dutt (Paul),* J.<\/span>, 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.<\/p>\n

Factual Matrix<\/p>\n

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)<\/a> of the Act<\/a>.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Petitioner’s Contentions<\/p>\n

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<\/a> of the Act<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Legal Provisions<\/p>\n