Authority: Calcutta High Court

Order Date: 08 October 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner – Saibal Kumar Nag; Respondent No.1 – State of West Bengal; Respondent No.2 – M/s Himalaya Wellness Company (formerly M/s Himalay Drug Company). Senior counsel for petitioner: Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, Anindya Lahiri, Bikash Chakraborty. Senior counsel for respondent No.2: Soumya Majumdar, S. K. Singh, S. K. Sharma, Ravi Kr. Dubey.
  • Nature of proceedings: Writ petition (WPA 253 of 2026) filed under the Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction challenging an order dated 29 August 2025 passed by the 5th Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, which reviewed an award dated 18 December 2024.
  • Background: The petitioner was employed as a Medical Representative (Sales Promotion Employee) with M/s Himalaya Wellness Company from 18 May 1992, with transfers to Dimapur (1993), Agartala (1997) and Kolkata (April 2007). During the Covid period he was directed to visit Kirana stores, a role contrary to his designation, leading to a domestic enquiry and termination on 16 August 2022.
  • Initial award (18 Dec 2024): The 2nd Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata, allowed the petition on contest, directing:
  • Reinstatement of the petitioner in his previous post.
  • Compensation of Rs 5,00,000 + Rs 5,00,000 (total Rs 10,00,000) payable within 30 days.
  • Declaration that the termination dated 16.08.2022 and the domestic enquiry were illegal and invalid.
  • Payment of full back wages and consequential relief from 16.08.2022 with compound interest of 10% per annum.
  • Review application: Respondent No.2 filed a review under Rule 27(ii) of the West Bengal Industrial Dispute Rules, 1958, arguing that the Tribunal failed to decide the validity of the domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue. The 5th Industrial Tribunal allowed the review on 29 August 2025, holding that the validity of the enquiry must be adjudicated before examining the merit of dismissal.
  • Petitioner’s contentions: The petitioner argued that the review order was not maintainable, relying on several Supreme Court judgments (e.g., Government of Andhra Pradesh vs A. Venkata Rayudu, Anil Gilurker vs Bilaspur Raipur Kshetria Gramin Bank, Sawai Singh vs State of Rajasthan, Surath Chandra Chakrabarty vs State of West Bengal) and on provisions of Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 6 of the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976, and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
  • Respondent’s arguments: Cited judgments such as The Cooper Engineering Limited vs Shri P. P. Munde (1975 2 SCC 661) and Shankar Chakravarti vs Brittania Biscuit Company Ltd. (1979 3 SCC 371), and an order dated 13.04.2021 in WPA 8531 of 2021 (M/s Birla Building Ltd. vs State of West Bengal) to support the maintainability of the review.
  • Legal provisions discussed: Rule 27 of the West Bengal Industrial Dispute Rules, 1958 (correction of errors, review of award, set‑aside provisions); Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; Section 6 of the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976; Section 151 CPC, 1908.

Final Outcome

  • The Calcutta High Court held that the 5th Industrial Tribunal correctly exercised its jurisdiction, that the review order of 29 August 2025 was well‑reasoned and in accordance with law, and that no procedural defect existed in the earlier award.
  • Consequently, WPA 253 of 2026 was dismissed, and all applications connected thereto were disposed of.
  • The Court directed that a photostat certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties upon compliance with formalities.

Topics: Industrial Dispute, Employment Law