Kesoram Rayon & Anr. vs State Of West Bengal & Ors.

This writ petition has been listed under the heading 'To Be Mentioned’ for being moved on urgent basis. Affidavit-of-service is filed. It is taken up

for being moved. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appears on behalf of private respondent and relies on judgments of Supreme Court in the cases

of Workmen represented by Hindustan V.O. Corpn. Ltd. vs. Hindustan Vegetables Oils Corporation Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2000) 9 SCC 534 and

Singer India Ltd. vs. State of West Bengal reported in 1999 (1) CHN 96 (SC). He relies on paragraph 2 of Hindustan Vegetable Oils (supra) which is

reproduced below:-

“2. The order under challenge has been passed by a Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta. Its operative portion states that the writ petition

filed by the present appellants and their application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act should be disposed of together, expeditiously.

We are of the view that an application under Section 17-B should be disposed of before the principal petition and it should be disposed of most

expeditiously.â€​

He relies on Singer India Ltd. (supra), paragraphs 6 and 7. They are reproduced below :-

“6. I am unable to accept the submission of the writ petitioner. The word ‘pending’ has been used without any qualification under Section

17-B. A petition is pending before the court under Article 226, once it is filed. This Court does not have a procedure whereby an application under

Article 226 is dependent upon admission.

It is true that the matter may not be taken up by the Court by reason of the pressure of work or otherwise, nevertheless as between the employer and

the employee, the delay on the Court’s part cannot be attributed to the employee at least. Furthermore, it appears that when the matter came up

on July 2, 1997 an adjournment was sought by both the parties including the writ petitioner. Finally, there is no evidence that the writ petitioner-

employer had made any effort to have the matter listed and disposed of expeditiously by the Court.â€​

FOR the above reason, the application under Section 17B is allowed. The period of pendency is treated as March 5, 1997 up-to-date. The writ

petitioner will pay the respondent No.3 Rs. 2,850/- per month calculated in respect of the aforesaid period within four weeks from date.â€​

He, thus, wants hearing first on his application made under section 17-B of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Mr. Majumder, learned advocate appears on

behalf of petitioner and seeks a week’s time to use affidavit in the said application for the purpose of bringing on record his clients evidence, if

any, regarding private respondent having had been employed during the period of pendency of this writ petition. Affidavits will be accepted on

adjourned date provided advance copy has been served. List on 3rd July, 2018.