RAJ KAMAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal is directed against the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge dated March 25, 2025, in writ petition W.P. No. 19913 (w) of 2017. The respondent No.3/workman has been granted relief by the Hon'ble Single Judge under Sec. 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The appellant/writ petitioner/proprietorship firm is aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order. Hence, this appeal.

(2.) Let the facts necessary for adjudication of this appeal bereft of any unnecessary details, be narrated, as follows. An industrial dispute had culminated into an Award being passed by the Second Labour Court dated August 23, 2016, by dint of which the respondent/workman was held to be entitled to reinstatement in service with full back wages and other consequential benefits as he has prayed for. Challenging the said Award, the appellant/firm has come up before the Hon'ble Single Judge in the writ petition W.P. No. 19913 (w) of 2017, which is still pending and awaiting adjudication. In connection with the said case, the respondent/workman has filed an application under Sec. 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (as amended) (being CAN No. 3 of 2022) to pray for the relief inter alia that the appellant/writ petitioner may be directed to make payment of last drawn wages of the workman, from the date of passing of the Award, that is from August 23, 2016, till disposal of the said writ petition, towards benefit under the provision of Sec. 17B of the Act of 1947 (as amended). The present appellant/writ petitioner has filed opposition to such application filed by the respondent/workman. Both the parties were heard by the Court and the order dated March 25, 2025 has been passed, which is impugned in this appeal.

(3.) The principal point of challenge as to the impugned order dated March 25, 2025, of the Hon'ble Single Bench is that the Court in the said order has been unsuccessful in appreciating the settled principle of law that fraud vitiates all. The applicant has submitted that the prayer of the workmen under Sec. 17 B of the Act of 1947, as amended, before the Hon'ble Single Bench was based on frivolous grounds and distorted and misinterpreted facts tantamount to making false statements and misrepresentations in a Court of law. Mr. De, a learned senior counsel, has represented the appellant. He has submitted that fraud and misrepresentation of the relevant facts, as committed by the applicant /workman before the Hon'ble Single Bench, vitiate his case. In such circumstances, the said workman/respondent No.3 in this appeal would not be entitled to any relief under Sec. 17 B of the said Act, he says. Mr. De, a learned senior counsel, has taken this Court to the averments made by the respondent/workman in the application under Sec. 17 B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to show that the workman has stated there about his unemployment and indigent conditions since his termination of service. He has further argued that such statements in the application have been affirmed in an affidavit as true and correct, which not only establishes but strengthens the commission of fraud by the applicant/workman on the Court. To elaborate on how the said averments are intentional misrepresentations and fraud committed by the respondent/workman, Mr. De, a learned senior counsel, has thereafter taken the Court to the documents produced by the appellant with its affidavit in opposition, which are said to be the various pay statements of the said workman from other concerns. It is submitted that according to those pay statements from other concerns, granted in favour of the respondent /workman, it is evident that not only has he been employed elsewhere after his termination from service with the appellant/proprietorship firm, but also has earned even more than what he was earlier earning from his job with the appellant. By referring to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of District Primary School Council, West Bengal Vs. Mrityunjoy Das reported in (2011) 15 SCC 111, Mr. De learned senior counsel, has submitted that according to the Court's verdict therein, if a particular act is fraudulent, any consequential order to such fraudulent act or conduct is non est and void ab initio.