EAST INDIA PHARMACEUTICAL WORKS LTD Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
LAWS(CAL)-1998-4-1
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on April 22,1998

EAST INDIA PHARMACEUTICAL WORKS LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

D.P. Kundu, J. - (1.) In this writ application the writ petitioner, (hereinafter referred to as the company) has challenged an order passed by the First Labour Court, West Bengal on December 19, 1996 in case No. COMP.39/92 and COMP. 115/92,
(2.) The respondent No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as the workman) preferred application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) against his employer, the company for computation of monetary benefits. It further appears that consequent upon the applications made by the workman under Section 33-C(2) of the said Act two cases being COMP.39/92 and COMP. 115/92 were initiated.
(3.) It appears that in Case No. COMP.39/92 workman in his application before the First Labour Court, West Bengal stated that he was entitled to receive money benefit as detailed in the enclosed annexure. The annexure enclosed with the said application is quoted hereinbelow: Annexure 'A' (Transferred to Behala Works of the Company on 4.4. 1992) (By letter No. PER/TFR/4106/91 dt.3.4.1991) JUDGEMENT_1154_LLJ3_2000Html1.htm Company in its written statement before the First Labour Court in connection with Case No. COMP.39/92 in paragraphs 8,9,14 and 16 stated as follows: "8. That the application is completely vague in as much as it has not been disclosed in the application that on which date after his scheduled duty hours how many hours he has worked and by whose order. Unless those details are there the application suffers from the mischief of vagueness and the learned Court should refuse to compute on such vague application. 9. That the present application has been filed on an abstract claim which cannot be decided on an application under Section 33- C(2). 14. That on receiving the application the, opposite party has checked its record and it is found that no overtime work has been done by the Applicant on those days mentioned in the application and no order of doing overtime work was given to him. 16. That during the alleged dates as claimed in Annexure 'A' the applicant has not been ordered to do any overtime and actually he has not done any work beyond the scheduled hours." ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.