District: Calcutta

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

In the matter of :

W.P. No.18116(W) of 2005

And

In the matter of :

Messrs. P.R. Samuel,

represented by A.D.R.

Samuel, proprietor of A&A

Agency

….Petitioner

-Versus-

Learned Judge, 7th

Industrial Tribunal &

Ors.

….Respondents
 2

AFFIDAVIT-IN-OPPOSITION ON BEHALF OF THE

RESPONDENT NO.6, WORKMEN

I, MOSIRUDDIN MALLICK, son of Late Abdul

Basir Mallick, aged about 55 years, by

occupation unemployed, having address at 8/2,

Plam Avenue, Calcutt-700019, do hereby solemnly

affirm and say as follows :-

1. I am the Respondent No.6 workman in the

instant writ petition. I know the facts and

circumstances of the case and am otherwise

competent to affirm and depose to the same.

2. That I have read a copy of the writ

petition filed by the petitioner company

challenging the award passed by the Learned 7 th

Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal verified by an

affidavit dated 07.09.2005 (hereinafter

referred to as the said petition) and I have

understood the contents meaning and purport of

the same.
 3

3. At the very outset I say that the

petitioner has deliberately and willfully not

annexed any annexure to the said writ petition

though in the body of the petition it has been

mentioned as annexures P-1, P-2, P-3 but none

of the annexure have been annexed rendering the

said writ petition liable to be dismissed in

limine.

4. Save what are matters of record and save

what are stated and admitted hereinafter, I

deny each and all the allegations and/or

statements and/or contentions made in the said

petition and I put the petitioner/deponent to

strict proof thereof.

5. I have been advised to traverse and/or

deal with only those allegations made in the

said petition which are relevant for

determination of the issues involved and the

rest of the allegations and/or statements

and/or contentions made in the said petition

 4

will be deemed to have been denied by me in

seriatim.

6. I say that the petitioner had filed the

said petition by suppressing material facts

involved in the present case and the said

petition lacks in material particulars and as

such is not maintainable and liable to be

dismissed in limine.

7. I say that the allegations made in the

said petition relates to question of facts

which has already been decided by the Learned

Tribunal by passing an award in favour of the

Respondent No.6 workman and as such the same

cannot be further investigated and/or reopened

in the garb of filing the writ petition under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I say

that the writ Court is not a Court of Appeal

and the Learned Tribunal since has decided the

matter on the basis of materials and evidences

on record and as there is no allegations with

 5

regard to denial of principles of natural

justice and fair play and/or procedural

infirmities, the Writ Court sitting in a writ

jurisdiction may not interfere with the award

passed by the Learned Tribunal and dismiss the

writ petition in limine.

8. I say that the said petition is not a

bonafde one, but is speculative and harassing

and as such the same is liable to be dismissed

in limine with costs. I say that the Learned

Tribunal had passed the award after considering

all relevant materials and documents and

evidences on record and I say that the award

passed by the Learned Tribunal is valid and

proper award and that any prudent man acting

judicially and properly instructed as to the

provisions of law, on the given set of evidence

and materials on records would have come to the

same conclusion what has been arrived at by the

Learned Tribunal in the instant case.

 6

9. I say that the petitioner has not been

able to make out any case whatsoever for

interference by this Hon’ble Court sitting in

its writ jurisdiction and I say that no ground

has been made out to merit intervention by this

Hon’ble Court.

10. Without waiving the aforesaid objection

but fully relying upon the same I crave leave

to deal with the allegations and/or statements

and/or contentions made in the different

paragraphs of the writ petition.

11. With reference to paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of

the said petition I say that those are maters

of record and save and except what appears

there from I deny and dispute each and all the

statements and/or contentions made therein and

I put the deponent to strict proof thereof.

12. With reference to paragraphs 4 and 5 of

the said petition I deny and dispute the

statements and/or contentions and/or

 7

allegations made therein and I put the deponent

to strict proof thereof. I say that in the

petitioner firm there were about 13-14

employees working at the relevant time when the

Respondent No.6 was in a most illegal and

arbitrary manner terminated from service.

13. I specifically deny that the petitioner

firm had only two employees as alleged or at

all. I say that the Respondent No.6 was working

regularly since 1989 till the date of his

illegal termination on or from 16.01.1999. I

say that in all the records maintained by the

petitioner firm, the name of the Respondent

No.6 would appear and that is the reason why

none of the papers or documents were produced

before the Learned Tribunal. I say that the

petitioner firm willfully and deliberately did

not issue any appointment letter.

14. I specifically deny that the Respondent

No.6 was once or twice in a month called upon

by the petitioner firm on daily wages as

 8

alleged or at all. I say that the petitioner

firm has admitted the facts of reference of

industrial dispute by the Government of West

Bengal to the 7th Industrial Tribunal was known

and within the knowledge of the petitioner firm

when it received the notice dated 06.12.2004.

15. With reference to paragraph 6 of the said

petition I make no comment whatsoever since the

statements made therein are not relevant for

the instant case.

16. With reference to paragraphs 7 and 8 of

the said petition I deny and dispute each and

all the allegations and/or statements and/or

contentions made therein which are contrary to

and/or inconsistent with the record and I put

the deponent to strict proof thereof. I say

that the deponent has affirmed the paragraphs

under reply as his information which he beliefs

to be true whereas the facts remains that the

deponent has willfully and deliberately

suppressed the material facts that the

 9

petitioner firm duly authorized his Learned

Advocate Mr. Quader by giving him a power to

appear before the Learned Tribunal and along

with power a reply to the show cause notice was

also filed by the deponent/petitioner firm

before the Learned Tribunal which was signed by

the deponent on behalf of the petitioner firm

and the same is a part of record before the

Learned Tribunal and the same will appear in

the order No.26 dated 18.05.2005 passed by the

Learned Tribunal on the basis of the power

filed by the Learned Advocate and the reply to

the show cause notice of the petitioner firm.

17. I say that in view of the above facts the

contents/statements made in paragraph 8 of the

said petition is absolutely false and

misleading and I say that this Hon’ble Court

may call the record of the case from the

Tribunal to verify the statement and/or

contention allegedly made by the Deponent on

behalf of the petitioner.

 10

18. I say that the deponent must be dealt with

accordingly by this Hon’ble Court for making

false statements and/or contentions under Oath

before this Hon’ble Court.

19. With further reference to the paragraphs

under reply I specifically deny that the award

dated 19.07.2005 passed by the Learned 7th

Industrial Tribunal is illegal and cannot be

acted upon, is not based on evidence and

documents as alleged or at all. I say that the

petitioner firm willfully and deliberately did

not choose to contest the case before the

Tribunal as that would have compelled the firm

to bring on record all the papers and documents

of the firm which the deponent does not want to

disclose for some ulterior motive. I say that

the Learned Tribunal gave ample opportunity to

the petitioner and thereafter passed the award

on the basis of the materials, evidence and

documents produced by the workman and I say

that the findings of the Learned Tribunal is

based upon materials on records as well as on

 11

the evidence and documents and as such the

award is liable to be implemented by the

petitioner.

20. I specifically deny that any documents

exhibited before the Tribunal was vague and

manufactured one as alleged by the petitioner

and I call upon the deponent to strict proof

thereof.

21. With reference to paragraphs 9, 10 and 11

of the said petition I deny and dispute each

and all the statements and/or contentions

and/or allegations made therein and I put the

deponent to strict proof thereof. I say that

the petitioner firm is an establishment as

defined under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947

and the Respondent No.6 is a workman as defined

in Section 2(s) of the said Act. I specifically

deny that the award passed by the Learned

Tribunal is not applicable in the case of the

petitioner firm or that the award is not

 12

binding upon the petitioner firm as alleged or

at all and I call upon the deponent to strict

proof thereof.

22. I say that the petitioner duly appeared

before the Learned Tribunal by filing reply to

the show cause notice and by authorizing the

Advocate-on-Record to submit before the

Tribunal and now it cannot take a plea that the

award passed by the Learned Tribunal is an ex-

parte award. I specifically deny that the

petitioner firm has any fundamental right which

has seriously been affected as alleged or at

all. I further deny that the award passed by

the Learned Tribunal is an illegal award and is

liable to be set aside by this Hon’ble Court as

alleged or at all.

23. With reference to paragraphs 12 and 13 of

the said petition I deny and dispute the

statements and/or allegations and/or

contentions made therein and I call upon the

 13

deponent to strict proof thereof. I say that no

ground has been made out by the petitioner to

merit intervention by this Hon’ble Court in its

Extra Ordinary Writ Jurisdiction and I say that

the grounds are not tenable either in law or in

facts. I deny and dispute the validity

correctness, proprietary and sufficiency of the

grounds taken by the petitioner and that no

ground has been made out to merit intervention

by this Hon’ble Court and as such I say that

the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in

limine.

24. With reference to paragraphs 14, 15, 16,

17 and 18 of the said petition I say that save

and except those which are matters of record I

do not admit anything beyond the same and I put

the deponent to strict proof thereof. I deny

that there is no alternative speedy remedy

available to the petitioner or that the relief

as prayed for, if granted, will be complete

relief or that until and unless the ex-parte

 14

order and award is set aside the petitioner

firm will be seriously affected, or that the

instant application is made bonafide and for

the ends of justice as alleged or at all and I

call upon the deponent to strict proof thereof.

25. I say that the entire statements and/or

contentions made in the writ petition are

false, vague and baseless and the deponent has

tried to mislead this Hon’ble Court by making

false and frivolous statement and by

suppressing material facts from this Hon’ble

Court and as such the instant writ petition is

liable to be dismissed in limine with cost.

26. That the statements made in paragraphs

………………………………………………………………………………………………………are

true to my knowledge and those made in

paragraphs…………………………………………………………………………………………

are my information derived from records

which I verily believe to be true and the

 15

rest are my humble and respectful

submissions before this Hon’ble Court.

Prepared in my office The deponent is known to me

Clerk to Mr.Anant Kumar Shaw

Advocate

Advocate

Solemnly affirmed before

me on this the . . day of
June, 2006.

COMMISSIONER
 16

District: Calcutta

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE

In the matter of :
W.P. No.18116(W) of 2005

And
In the matter of :
Messrs. P.R. Samuel,
….Petitioner

-Versus-
Learned Judge, 7th
Industrial Tribunal &
Ors.
….Respondents

AFFIDAVIT-IN-OPPOSITION
ON BEHALF OF THE
RESPONDENT NO.6, WORKMEN

Anant Kumar Shaw

Advocate
Bar Association Room No.11
High Court Calcutta
17
18
19
20