Calcutta High Court
Bidhu Bhusan Sarkar vs Union Of India & Ors on 17 July, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.
BIDHU BHUSAN SARKAR
vs.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Bidhu Bhusan Sarkar (in person).
For the Respondent no. 1 : Mr. Sounak Bera,
Mr. Tapan Bhanja.
For the Respondent no. 2 : Mr. Suysanta Pal,
Mr. Pradipta Basu.
Hearing concluded on : 10.07.2025 Judgment on : 17.07.2025 Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.:
1. The writ application has been preferred praying for direction upon
respondent no. 3 to cancel, set aside and rescind Order dated
July 30, 2015 in Comp. Case No. 35 of 2002 whereby the learned
Judge was pleased to dismiss the case under Section 33-C (2) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2. The petitioner’s case is that he was a permanent employee of the
respondent no. 2, being employee no. 561 and he was posted in
2
the Behala Unit at 25, Ho Chi Minh Sarani, P. S. Thakurpukur,
Kolkata – 700 061, Dist. South 24 Parganas. On 4th April, 1998,
the employer company issued a purported charge sheet to the
petitioner with mala fide intention and on 7th June, 1999 the
respondent company filed a purported application before the
learned Tribunal under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 for approval of the said dismissal of the petitioner.
3. The application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 was heard by the learned 8th Industrial Tribunal, West
Bengal and on contested hearing, the learned Tribunal by an
Order No. 71 dated 09.08.2002 was pleased to dismiss the
application of the company, holding inter alia that the petition
does not lie in accordance with the provision of Section 33(2)(b) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and was also pleased not to
confirm the dismissal of the petitioner.
4. The petitioner then filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for back wages including
ancillary benefits and sent a letter dated 12/08/2002 to the said
company demanding immediate reinstatement in service with full
benefits.
5. The respondent company herein sent a letter to the petitioner on
28/08/2002, wherein the company stated that the Tribunal has
no authority to grant any approval of the action taken against the
workmen by the company in respect of dismissal from his service
3
and as such the request made by the petitioner to allow him to
join in his post and to pay him his back wages does not arise and
thus the Order of dismissing the petitioner from the service of the
company vide letter dated 07/06/1999 still stands and is in force.
6. The order in respect of the application under Section 33-C(2) of
the I.D. Act. is under challenge in the present writ application.
7. The petitioner has appeared in person.
8. The findings of the learned Judge, 1st Labour Court, in the order
under challenge, is as follows:
“Going through the entire order it is fully
clear that the Ld. Tribunal by virtue of the Order
No. 71. dt. 09.08.2002 did not write a single
word against the order of dismissal dt.
07.06.1999 against the applicant, Shri Bidhu
Bhusan Sakar. Under such circumstances, it can
safely be said that whether the order of
dismissal dt. 07.06.1999 is illegal or unjustified
has not been adjudicated by any court of law till
now. Then undoubtedly the said order of
dismissal dt. 07.06.1999 against the
applicant Shri Bidhu Bhusan Sarkar
stands. Unless and until the order of dismissal
is set aside by any court of law, the instant
Order No.71, dt. 09.08.2002 cannot be the basis
of the instant claim. Till today the order of
dismissal stands. So, the applicant has no basis
to claim any back wages. Coming here, I am
compelled to form my opinion that the applicant
has been continuing his case to base upon an
order about which the applicant is fully under
misconception. Besides the above, the applicant
filed a writ petition No.1365 (W) of 2002 during
pendency of the instant case to base upon the
Order No.71, dt. 09.08.2002, but the said writ
petition was dismissed as not pressed.
Now, in the light of the aforesaid
discussions and going through the entire case
4record, I am of the view that the case is not
maintainable at all and as such, the applicant is
not entitled to get any relief as sought for.
Accordingly, both the issue are decided against
the applicant. In the result, the applicant fails.
Hence,Ordered
That the case u/s. 33 C (2) of The Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 be and the same is
dismissed on contest. There is no order of any
cost.
Let necessary copies of the order be sent to
the concerned authority to the Govt. of West
Bengal.
Sd/-
Judge
First Labour Court
Kolkata, W.B.”
9. The learned Judge, 1st Labour Court also took into consideration
observations of the learned Tribunal who disposed of the
application filed by the company under Section 33(2)(b) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which for its relevancy is also
quoted hereinbelow:-
“Ld. Tribunal observes in the said Section
33(2)(b) of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
states that “during the pendency of any such
proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute,
the employer may, in accordance with the
Standing Orders applicable to a workman
concerned in such dispute, for any misconduct
not connection with the dispute, discharge or
punish whether by dismissal or otherwise that
workman shall be discharged or dismissed
unless he has been paid wages for one month’s
and an application has been made by the
employer to the authority before which the
5proceeding is pending for approval of the action
taken by the employer.” Keeping in view of the
said definition Ld. Tribunal observed that “I have
gone through the document and the list of
documents filed by the company and failed to
find any such document to show that a reference
was pending either against this concerned
workman or against the union, where this
workman was connected. In this circumstances,
I do not find any nexus with the case under
reference and the present case. I have gone
through the documents filed by the company
which has been marked Ext. L series. These are
the dismissal order wherein a Pay order of Rs.
7830/- as one month’s wages has been referred.
A copy of the Cheque has also been filed by the
company. This shows that the concerned
workman accepted the order of dismissal along
with the cheque of Rs.7830/-. According to the
provision of Sec. 33 (2) (b) of The Industrial
Disputes Act the date of issue of dismissal order
and the date of issue of one month’s salary
should be one date as also the date of filing of
the application before the Tribunal for approval.
In the present case all these dates are all as on
07.06.99. Therefore, this Tribunal has no
hesitation but to hold that compliance of the
provision of Sec. 33 (2) (b) of the I. D. Act has
rightly been done by the company.”
Ld. Tribunal further observed in the said
order that “Now Ld. Lawyer for the workman has
contended that the amount sent to the workman
is not full amount of one month’s salary as
mentioned by the Hon’ble Court in a decision
reported in 1990 S. C. C. L & S, p. 255 and 1988
Lab. I. C., p. 219. I have gone through both the
decisions and found that the Hon’ble Court has
held that all the allowances including the
original salary is to be paid by the company. I
have gone through the written objection filed by
the workman and failed to find that the
concerned workman has not pleaded which
allowance he was not paid by the company. I
have also gone through the evidence as P.W. 1,
wherein he has stated that his last drawn salary
was in between Rs. 8000/- to Rs.9000/- per
6
month. In the circumstances the workman has
also not pleaded during his evidence which
allowance was not paid by the company.
However, when I have held that there is no
nexus in between the reference case as
mentioned by the petitioner-company and the
present application filed by the company, I do
not find any necessity to discuss as to whether
there is any primafacie case against the
concerned workman and as such this Tribunal
has no authority to grant any approval of the
action taken against the concerned workman by
the company in respect of dismissal of service of
the concerned workman…………
Sd/-
Judge
First Labour Court
Kolkata, W.B.”
10. By the order under challenge, the Labour Court came to the
finding that the order of dismissal of the petitioner was still in
force and unless the same is set aside, the claim of the petitioner
cannot be considered and dismissed the claim of the petitioner
filed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
11. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent/Company has
relied upon Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
and submits that this Section is applicable only in respect of any
money due to a workman from an employer under a settlement or
an award.
12. It is stated that in the present case, as there is neither any
settlement nor any award, the said provision is not applicable and
the learned Labour Court rightly dismissed the application under
7
Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 filed by the
petitioner.
13. The learned Labour Court thus rightly interpreted the relevant
provision being Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 and on the finding that the dismissal order of the petitioner
being still in force, the application of the petitioner was
misconceived, dismissed the same.
14. Accordingly, the order under challenge being, in accordance with
law, requires no interference.
15. WPO 231 of 2016 is thus dismissed.
16. There will be no order as to costs.
17. Urgent certified Photostat copy of this Judgment, if applied for,
shall be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible on
compliance of all necessary formalities.
(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)