IN RE: K.K. BARMAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition was moved on April 22, 1993, in presence of the learned Advocate for the State Respondents. There was serious allegation against the Conciliation Officer and Assistant Labour Commissioner, Basirhat. Respondent No. 3, that he was taking illegal and irregular steps to harass the Petitioners and being satisfied prima facie, this Court directed the said authorities to be personally present in the Court with all proper records on May 20, 1993, when the matter would appear for orders top of of the list. All conciliation proceedings were stayed. Leave was granted to the learned Advocates for both sides to inform the concerned authority as to the order.

(2.) The matter appeared in the list on June 9, 1993 and the presence of the learned Advocate for the writ Petitioners and for the Stale, being Mr. Dasgupta, Advocate. It was noted in the order dated June 9, 1993, by this Court that Mr. Dasgupta, learned Advocate, had sent a communication to the Respondent No. 3 on April 28, 1993, that the said Respondent must appear on May 26, 1993, before this Court, but none appeared on behalf of the said Respondent No. 3 on May 26, 1993 and hence the matter was adjourned. In the said order dated June 9, 1993, it was further noted that Mr. Dasgupta, Advocate, submitted that the said Respondent No. 3 till then had not instructed him nor the said Respondent No. 3 was personally present in the Court pursuant to the order dated April 22, 1993. This Court prima facie found that the Respondent No. 3 was trying, to avoid appearing before the Court in gross disobedience. This Court, accordingly, issued suo mode rule in contempt calling upon Sri K.K. Barman. Conciliation Officer and Assistant Labour Commissioner, Basirhat, Government of West Bengal, as to how cause why he should not be suitably dealt with or punished or sent to prison for his contumacious act and/or having failed to secure compliance of the Court's order dated April 22, 1993, or with such other suitable orders as to this Court may deem fit and proper.

(3.) Then the matter appeared on June 30, 1993, in the list. It was submitted that both Sri K.K. Barman, erstwhile Conciliation Officer and Assistant Labour Commissioner, Basirhat and Sri Ram Prosad Koyal, the present incumbent to that post are both personally present in the Court. Sri Kayal was made a party Respondent to the contempt rule as it was stated that he was present in the Court for effective adjudication of the dispute. Both of them were granted leave to file affidavits to explain their position or as to why the Petitioners were being harassed as alleged in the writ petition or as to why records were not produced and instruction was not given to Mr. Dasgupta, Advocate for the State. Pursuant thereto, both have filed affidavits before this Court.