Authority: High Court at Calcutta, Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction (Appellate Side)

Order Date: 07 October 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: M/s. Industrial Enterprises; Respondents: State of West Bengal & others (including Respondent No.4). WPA 11393 of 2026 filed.
  • The petition challenged two orders of the 2nd Labour Court, Kolkata: (a) order dated 14 March 2022 that condoned delay in filing the application dated 23 May 2018; (b) order dated 18 February 2026 that rejected the petition dated 06 May 2024 and fixed 16 March 2026 for evidence.
  • Background: Workman Shri Sekhar Manna was employed by M/s. Industrial Enterprise, a contractor for Exide Industries Ltd at Haldia. After medical certificates recommending light duty, the employer could not provide such work and the dispute was raised individually.
  • Deputy Labour Commissioner, Haldia, on 21 November 2001 held the grievance not an industrial dispute under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and dismissed it.
  • The dispute was later dismissed by the 2nd Labour Court on 16 October 2015 (Case No. 14 of 2013) on the ground of limitation under Section 2A(3).
  • Respondent No.4 approached the Labour Court again; the Court, on 18 February 2026, reiterated that the earlier condonation order already addressed delay and that res judicata did not apply, rejecting the petition dated 06 May 2024.
  • The petitioner argued jurisdictional error, citing Indu Bhusan Jana v. Union of India, Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, and M. Nagabhushana v. State of Karnataka.
  • Respondent No.4 contended that the 2015 dismissal was purely technical, that the present proceeding under Section 10(1B)(d) is a distinct statutory remedy, and that the workman was never dismissed, thus no industrial dispute arose.
  • Respondent also relied on Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan (limits of certiorari) and Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu (abuse of process due to delay).
  • The Court observed that the Section 2A(2) proceeding was dismissed on limitation grounds, whereas the present case under Section 10(1B)(d) is separate and independent, so the Labour Court’s orders were lawful.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court dismissed WPA 11393 of 2026.
  • All applications, if any, connected to the petition stand disposed of.
  • A photostat certified copy of the judgment shall be provided to the parties on priority upon compliance with formalities.

Topics: Legal Procedure; Industrial Disputes Act