KAMAL RANJAN DAS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE subject matter of challenge in this writ petition is order no.13 dated 18th February, 2008 passed by the First Labour Court in Case No. COMP 50 of 2006 (Biswajit Mitra –vs- King and Co. (Homoeo Chemist) Pvt. Ltd.) by which the learned Labour Court refused to pass an order deleting the name of the opposite party no.2 who is the writ petitioner before me.

(2.) THE writ petitioner has been made a co-respondent in a proceeding under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The writ petitioner is interested in contending that he is merely the Chairman of the Company. The Company, according to him, is the employer. Therefore, the liability, if any, is that of the employer and there is no reason why he should have been sued in the first instance. His name is should, therefore, be struck out from the cause title considering that he is neither a necessary nor a property party. The learned Labour Court refused to do so. 2 No one appeared to oppose this application. Mr. Guha Thakurta, the learned advocate appearing in support of the writ petition, drew my attention to the judgement in the case of State of West Bengal -vs- Aspiring Engineers & Exporters Pvt. Ltd. & ors. reported in 2008(1) CHN page 165 wherein a Learned Judge of this Court opined as follows: -

(3.) THE judgement in the case of Aspiring Engineers and Exporters Pvt. Ltd., (supra), it was not disputed by the learned Counsel, was rendered without taking into consideration Section 32 of the Industrial Disputes Act which provides as follows:-