Calcutta HC Upholds Labour Court's Compensation Order | Justice Delayed But Not Denied As 92-Year-Old Workman Awarded Full Dues After 53-Year Legal Battle
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Calcutta Single Bench of Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das has dismissed a revisional application challenging an order passed by the Labour Court regarding computation of monetary dues under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Court directed the petitioner company to pay the amount computed by the Labour Court, along with 10% annual interest from the date of the original computation order. The entire sum is to be paid within a fortnight from the date of service of the order. In case of default, an additional 6% annual interest shall apply until full payment is made.
The case originates from a labour dispute dating back to 1972, involving the termination of an employee who had been engaged as an Export Assistant with a monthly salary of ₹200 and a stipulated increment of ₹8 per month. Initially employed on a probationary basis in 1968, the employee’s services were terminated on 1st February 1972, allegedly due to surplus manpower. A dispute ensued, and the matter was eventually treated as an industrial dispute under Section 20A of the Industrial Disputes Act.
By an award dated 7th September 1990, the 7th Industrial Tribunal declared the termination illegal and directed reinstatement with full back wages and all financial benefits, deeming the employee to have remained in service from 1st February 1972. This award was challenged in a writ petition, which was later dismissed for default. The petitioner's application to recall the dismissal remained pending.
Subsequently, the employee filed an application under Section 33C(2) of the Act before the Labour Court in 1999 to compute the monetary benefits owed in terms of the 1990 award. The Labour Court initially awarded ₹8,50,754.65 based on a monthly increment of ₹8, but the High Court set aside this computation in 2006 and directed fresh adjudication.
During the fresh proceedings, the petitioner company submitted that the employee was entitled to an annual increment of ₹10, not ₹8 per month, asserting that the original appointment letter had a typographical error. It was also argued that the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction to interpret or vary the terms of the award and that any such computation should have adhered strictly to the amount last drawn, which was ₹240.
The employee contended that although he had not previously contested the increment calculation, it had been agreed at the time of appointment and should be honored. The employee maintained that socio-economic pressures in the 1960s and 1970s prevented him from protesting formally. He further argued that the Labour Court had merely interpreted the award to compute the correct quantum based on the terms of employment and had not ventured beyond its jurisdiction.
After evaluating the evidence and pleadings, the Labour Court passed an order dated 29th February 2012 directing the company to pay an additional sum of ₹5,16,431 over the amounts previously paid. This triggered the present revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which was heard and decided by Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das.
The Court stated, “This court is unable to agree with the petitioner that the learned labour court exceeded his jurisdiction by considering ₹8 per month while calculating the quantum of compensation in place of ₹10 per annum in view of the fact that the letter of appointment was very specific about the said increment.”
Addressing the question of waiver, the Court recorded, “In the instant case, the Award passed by the Tribunal and the order passed by the labour court unequivocally established that the opposite party was no more a temporary employee since he completed his probation period successfully and was continued with yearly increment.”
Regarding the scope of the Labour Court under Section 33C(2), the Court noted, “It would, in appropriate cases be open to the labour court to interpret the award or settlement on which the work man’s right rests.” The Court cited Central Bank of India Ltd. v. P.S. Raja Gopalan to affirm that execution courts, including Labour Courts under Section 33C(2), are competent to interpret decrees or awards for the purpose of execution.
In response to the petitioner's reliance on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak, the Court distinguished the facts and concluded, “This court is unable to accept the contention of the learned advocate of the petitioner that the Opposite Party waived his right to have the increment at the rate of ₹8 per month by accepting the increment at the rate of ₹10 per annum.”
The judgment also considered historical context, stating, “This Court cannot be oblivion of the unrest situation prevailing in the state of West Bengal in the year 1969/70... At that crucial time a young man was given an appointment... Subsequently, the company deviated from the amount agreed... and paid lesser amount.”
In closing its observations, the Court remarked, “The award said about the entitlement of the respondent, and accordingly he claimed the compensation at the rate of ₹8 per month as an increment.” It concluded that the Labour Court acted within its jurisdiction by computing the compensation on that basis.
The Court issued the following directions: “Accordingly this Court direct the company to pay the amount as commutated by the labour court within a period of fortnight. The company is further directed to pay the said amount with interest at the rate of 10% per annum since 29.12.12 when the order of computation was passed and the entire amount is to be paid within a period of fortnight from the date of server copy of the order. In default the company will pay a further interest of 6% per annum till such payment is made.”
The revisional application filed by the company was formally rejected: “Accordingly this revisional application is dismissed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Shounak Mukhopadhyay, Mr. Sayantan Bose, Ms. Priyanka Gope
For the Respondents: Mr. Jayanta Dasgupta, Mr. Balaram Patra
Case Title: The Bloomfield Tea Co. Ltd. v. Amarnath Chatterjee
Case Number: CO 1528 of 2012
Bench: Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das
[Read/Download order]
