Safiya Malik

In a judgment delivered on March 24, 2025, the Calcutta High Court, exercising its Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction on the Appellate Side, addressed the grievance of a petitioner seeking judicial intervention in a labour dispute matter. The Single Bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) issued directions to the concerned Industrial Tribunal regarding the framing of issues in a pending dispute, stating the importance of proper adjudication of the central question related to the legality of a dismissal.

The Court ordered the Tribunal to frame an additional issue specifically as to whether the workman's dismissal from service by issuance of a Dismissal Order dated December 11, 2021, was in accordance with law, justified, and proper. The judgment also dealt with a separate prayer by the petitioner concerning the exhibition of documents, which the Court declined to interfere with.

Also Read: Supreme Court Sets Aside Convictions in Gujarat Riots Case, “No Evidence to Infer Membership of Unlawful Assembly from Mere Presence”

The petitioner, a workman who joined the private respondent's service on May 26, 2004, claimed to be covered under the Employees' State Insurance (ESI) Act, 1948. He was also an office bearer of the union of operating units under the private respondents.

According to the petitioner, a false and fabricated charge sheet-cum-suspension notice dated December 31, 2020, was issued against him by the private respondent, allegedly in conspiracy with one Kakali Pramanick. In response, the petitioner submitted a reply but was not allowed to rejoin work. Consequently, he approached the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Howrah, with a representation dated January 19, 2021.

Following this, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer, Howrah, via a representation dated January 20, 2022, challenging his dismissal, which he alleged was the outcome of a sham inquiry. As no action was taken, he made further representations dated April 13, 2022, and May 17, 2022. After 45 days from the first representation, he invoked Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and filed Case No. 05/2022 before the Tribunal.

The petitioner contended that the Tribunal, while framing issues for adjudication on November 17, 2023, failed to frame the principal issue concerning the legality and justification of his dismissal. The issues framed were:

1. Is the case maintainable in its present form and law
2. ?Has the petitioner any cause of action to file this case?
3. Is the petitioner entitled to get relief as prayed for?
4. To what other relief or reliefs, if any, is the petitioner entitled?

Despite requests, the Tribunal declined to include a specific issue addressing the legality of the dismissal. The Tribunal opined that the existing Issue No. 3 would cover the question of whether the dismissal was illegal and unjustified. An additional issue relating to the validity of the domestic enquiry was also framed.

The petitioner also sought permission from the Tribunal to exhibit documents mentioned in his affidavit-in-chief. However, this request was rejected on October 29, 2024, as the documents were not part of the pleadings and deemed irrelevant to the adjudication.

The claim statement under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act prayed for a declaration that the workman's dismissal by Dismissal Order dated December 11, 2021, was illegal and void ab initio, along with reinstatement, full back-wages, consequential benefits, and reasonable costs.

The Court observed that framing issues under the Industrial Disputes Act plays a crucial role in defining specific points of contention within a labour dispute. The judgment recorded:

"Framing issues under the Industrial Disputes Act is crucial because it clearly defines the specific points of contention within a labour dispute, providing a structured framework for adjudication, ensuring that the relevant matters are addressed during the proceedings, and facilitating a fair and efficient resolution between the employer and employee parties."

The Court further noted:

"By clearly outlining the issues, the adjudicating authority can concentrate on the core areas of disagreement, preventing unnecessary tangents or irrelevant arguments."

It was recorded that the core issue in the present case was the legality and justification of the dismissal order dated December 11, 2021. The Court found that the Tribunal's refusal to frame this specific issue, despite the nature of the dispute and the petitioner’s pleadings, was not in accordance with law.

In addressing the Tribunal's reliance on the sufficiency of the existing Issue No. 3, the Court recorded:

"The industrial dispute (core point) in these cases clearly relate to the petitioner’s/workman’s dismissal from services and the said issue is the principal issue in this case."

Also Read: “The Ostracization Must Cease”: Rajasthan High Court Forms Panel to Investigate Khap Panchayats and “Deep-Rooted Social Evils” Including “Honor Killings,” “Exorcism,” and Social Boycotts

With regard to the prayer for exhibiting documents, the Court found no irregularity in the Tribunal’s decision. It observed:

"It appears from the order dated 29.10.2024 that the tribunal rightly rejected the petitioner’s prayer for marking some documents as stated in the affidavit as exhibits, as the said documents were not part of the pleadings and were thus not relevant for the adjudication of the dispute in accordance with law."

"The tribunal rightly held that the petitioner’s prayer was in respect of documents not relevant to the issues."

The Court allowed the writ petition in part and set aside the Tribunal's order dated January 5, 2024. It issued the following directive:

"Additional issue 'is the workman’s dismissal from service in accordance with law, justified and proper' be framed and be adjudicated by the tribunal."

On the other prayer concerning the exhibition of documents, the Court declined to interfere, stating:

"The order dated 29.10.24 relating to the above prayer requires no interference by this Court."

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Rananeesh Guha Thakurta, Ms. Senjuti Sengupta

For the Respondent: Mr. Ranjay De (Senior Advocate), Mr. Basabjit Banerjee, Mr. Adityajit Abel Bose

Case Title: Alok Pakhira Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Case Number: WPA 3769 of 2025

Bench: Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)

[Read/Download order]