- (1.) THE subject matter of challenge in this writ petition is order no.13 dated 18th February, 2008 passed by the First Labour Court in Case No. COMP 50 of 2006 (Biswajit Mitra –vs- King and Co. (Homoeo Chemist) Pvt. Ltd.) by which the learned Labour Court refused to pass an order deleting the name of the opposite party no.2 who is the writ petitioner before me.
(2.) THE writ petitioner has been made a co-respondent in a proceeding under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The writ petitioner is interested in contending that he is merely the Chairman of the Company. The Company, according to him, is the employer. Therefore, the liability, if any, is that of the employer and there is no reason why he should have been sued in the first instance. His name is should, therefore, be struck out from the cause title considering that he is neither a necessary nor a property party. The learned Labour Court refused to do so. 2 No one appeared to oppose this application. Mr. Guha Thakurta, the learned advocate appearing in support of the writ petition, drew my attention to the judgement in the case of State of West Bengal -vs- Aspiring Engineers & Exporters Pvt. Ltd. & ors. reported in 2008(1) CHN page 165 wherein a Learned Judge of this Court opined as follows: - "Para-14: So far Section 33C of the I. D. Act is concerned, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that it contemplates any personal liability of the Managing Director or any of the Directors of the Company. The liability to satisfy the award for all practical as well as legal purposes continues to remain with the company irrespective of who represent the same. There was absolutely no justification for impleading the present opposite party no.2 in connection with the said execution proceeding. This Court appreciates the stand taken by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate as well as the concerned for effective execution of the award but this does not justify taking of a route, which is not permissible in law nor serve any fruitful purpose. " He also drew my attention to a judgement in the case of K. V. Kamath –vsLabour Enforcement Officer (Central), Kolkata and another reported in 2006(4) CHN 658 for an identical proposition. He, however, conceded that the second judgement cited by him was in respect of a claim arising out of the 3 Employees ' State Insurance Act. Therefore, that judgement is on a different point.
(3.) THE judgement in the case of Aspiring Engineers and Exporters Pvt. Ltd., (supra), it was not disputed by the learned Counsel, was rendered without taking into consideration Section 32 of the Industrial Disputes Act which provides as follows:- "Section 32: Offence by companies, etc.- Where a person committing an offence under this Act is a company, or other body corporate, or an association of persons (whether incorporated or not), every director, manager, secretary, agent or other officer or person concerned with the management thereof shall, unless he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or consent, be deemed to be guilty of such offence. " In the event the application pending before the Court below is allowed directing payment under Section 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act and in case payment is not made, the omission would amount to an offence punishable under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act. In that eventuality Section 32 of the Industrial Disputes Act shall be attracted rendering the petitioner liable for penal consequences. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the submission that the writ petitioner can never be made liable for the dues of the workman who has 4 presented the application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court. In any event, the High Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not interfere merely because there is an error in the order under challenge particularly when the Court below did not exceed its jurisdiction. The order may not be a just order. The order under challenge is of an interlocutory nature. The writ petitioner has the opportunity to appear before the Labour Court and to take such defence as he thinks fit and proper. It is, therefore, not required of the High Court to interfere. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ;