Authority: Calcutta High Court (High Court at Calcutta)

Order Date: 18 August 2026

Case Overview

  • Petition: WPA 10987 of 2026 filed by Kanoria Jute and Industries Ltd. (petitioner) against State of West Bengal & Anr. (respondent No.2) challenging the order dated 17 February 2026 of the Learned 2nd Labour Court, Kolkata, under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
  • Employee: Ranjit Kumar Khanra, employed since 1969, alleged to have handled the company’s financial transactions.
  • Labour Court Order: Directed payment of due wages for the period January 2006 to October 2009 amounting to Rs 1,43,336 plus interest at 10% per annum from filing of the application till actual payment.
  • Petitioner’s Contentions: (a) The mill was under closure due to severe labour unrest from March 2006 to August 2011; (b) The employee was terminated on 25‑04‑1980 following a domestic enquiry that found misappropriation of funds; (c) The employee had been reinstated by an award of 22‑11‑1995 but never resumed duties and repeatedly filed Section 33C(2) claims.
  • Prior Proceedings: Four earlier compensation cases (Comp. Case No.27 of 1996, No.06 of 2000, No.11 of 2003, No.01 of 2006) resulted in awards in favour of the employee; the petitioner had already paid Rs 8,03,320 in connection with the 1995 award.
  • Evidence of Closure: Exhibit‑B (closure notice) dated 21‑03‑2006, communicated to the Labour Commissioner; Exhibit‑D/E (opening notice) dated 22‑08‑2011 indicating the mill reopened.
  • Salary & Superannuation Details: Employee’s date of birth recorded as 24‑10‑1951; superannuation age per standing order clause 13C is 58 years, giving a superannuation date of October 2009. Salary was Rs 2,016 in 1969, increased to Rs 3,116 in January 2005; employee failed to prove any salary of Rs 7,000‑9,000, house‑rent allowance, or annual bonus for 2006‑2009.
  • Legal Points Discussed: Section 33C(2) is merely executionary; the award of 1995 was already crystallised; the doctrine of “No Work No Pay” does not apply to a reinstated employee; burden of proving continued service and superannuation lies on the employer.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court held that the Labour Court’s award was perverse and erroneous for ignoring the closure and opening notices and for allowing claims beyond the employee’s superannuation.
  • The order dated 17‑02‑2026 passed by the 2nd Labour Court under Section 33C(2) is quashed and set aside.
  • WPA 10987 of 2026 is allowed; all applications connected thereto are disposed of; any interim order stands vacated.
  • The court directed that a certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties upon compliance of formalities.

Topics: Industrial Disputes, Wage Claim