AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Joymalya Bagchi, J.—Let affidavit-of-service filed by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in Court today be kept on record.
The petitioners, who claim to be the employees of the respondent no. 3 company, have, inter alia, assailed the decision of the respondent no. 1, Corporation, to terminate the lease of respondent no. 3 company.
Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that as a consequence of such termination their right to employment has been jeopardized and accordingly they are entitled to challenge the same. In support of his contention learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied on 2007(4) CHN 363 (Chairman Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta v. Ifteahan Khan & Ors.) and 2008(1) CHN 219 (Bholanath Mondal & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Ors.).
I find that the decision of the respondent no. 1, Corporation, has already been challenged by the petitioners in an earlier proceeding in W.P. No. 11372(W) of 2016. It is open to the petitioners to intervene in that writ proceeding. However, in view of the fact that the petitioners do not have any privity of contract with the respondent no. 1, Corporation, I am of the considered opinion that the termination of the jural relationship between the respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 3 cannot be the subject matter of challenge at the behest of the petitioners. Reliance upon the aforesaid authorities are misplaced. In 2007(4) CHN 363 (supra), the Court was considering the right of a sub-lessee to challenge the decision of the local body to demolish the property. It is nobody''s case that the petitioners have any right, title or interest in the property or has a 3 lawful contract with respondent no. 1, Corporation which has been infringed. In 2008(1) CHN 219 (supra) the act of the Port Trust to exercise its right of lien over imported goods had been assailed by the handling agent. Handling agent was entitled to possession of the detained goods and accordingly held to have a legal right to assail such action of the Port authorities. Hence the ratio of the aforesaid decisions are of no help to the petitioners.
In Fertililser Corporation Kamgar Union (Regd.), Sindri & Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) & Ors. reported in (1981) 1 SCC 568, the Apex Court held that the sale or closure of an unit does not infringe the fundamental rights of its workmen under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India though such workmen may assail an unjust or unfair sale like any other person interested in the unit so as to ensure in public interest in the maximisation of returns from sale of a public asset. In National Textile Workers'' Union & Ors. v. P.R. Ramakrishnan & Ors. reported in (1983) 1 SCC 228, the Apex Court held that though workmen could not initiate a winding up proceeding against the employer company, they have a right of hearing in the proceeding till the company is would up or a provisional liquidator is appointed. In view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid reports, I am of the opinion that the impugned order of termination of lease of respondent no. 3, company cannot be said to have infringed any legal or fundamental right of the 4 petitioners/workmen so as to entitle them to challenge such decision on their own. They may, however, seek impleadment in the writ petition preferred by respondent no. 3, Company challenging such decision as a proper party and ventilate their grievances in the course of such proceeding.
With this aforesaid liberty, the writ petition is dismissed.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible on compliance of all necessary formalities.