DEBABRATA DEY AND ANR vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS

Form No. J(2)

In the High Court at Calcutta
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Appellate Side




Present: The Hon’ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
And
The Hon’ble Justice Sandip Kumar De




FMA No. 1656 of 2025
+
CAN 1 of 2026

Debabrata Dey and another
Vs.
The State of West Bengal and others



For the appellants : Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, Sr. Adv.,
Mr. Rananeesh Guha Thakurta,
Ms. Senjuti Sengupta,
Mr. Rijvan Mondal, Advs.

For the State : Mr. Dibasish Basu, AGP.,
Ms. Sneha Dutta, JGA,
Mr. Joy Ranjan Dhar, Adv.

For the respondent
No. 3. : Mr. Ranjay De, Sr. Adv.,
Mr. Basabjit Banerjee,
Mr. Adityajit Abel Bose, Advs.

Heard on : 01.09.2026.

Judgment on : 01.09.2026.




Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:-







1. The present challenge has been preferred against an order whereby a
learned Single Judge of this Court has disposed of the writ petition
filed by the present appellants with liberty to the writ petitioners to
prefer a statutory appeal under Section 11 of the Trade Unions Act,
1926 (in short “the 1926 Act”).

2

2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioners/appellants
argues that the order of the Registrar of Trade Unions dated July 20,
2023, which was impugned before the writ court, is palpably vitiated
due to violation of principles of natural justice, primarily inasmuch as
no copy of the information purportedly received by the Registrar from
the respondent no. 3 was served at any point of time on the appellants,
although the same formed a basis of the impugned order.
3. Learned senior counsel points out that the premise of the adjudication
on the said issue was that the minimum requirement of members was
not satisfied by the appellant no. 2-Trade Union, by taking into account
all the outlets of the Peerless Inn in Kolkata, Hyderabad, Durgapur,
Mukutmanipur, Port Blair etc. However, it is submitted that each of the
said units are different entities, some of them being governed by
different entities altogether. Therefore, all the said units of Peerless
could not be clubbed together to assess whether the appellant no.2
met the minimum requirement of members. Since settlements were
entered into only between the appellant no.2-Union and the Peerless
Inn at Kolkata, the authorities were required to test whether the
minimum requirement of membership was met by the appellant no.2
solely in respect of the Kolkata unit of Peerless Inn.
4. It is pointed out that as such, if the said information, furnished by the
Peerless Inn, was intimated to the appellants beforehand, the
appellants would have the opportunity to point out to the Registrar of
Trade Unions that the observation of the Registrar was bad on such
count, since the appellant no. 2 – Trade Union fully satisfied at all

3

points of time the minimum requirement of members, that is 10% or
100, whichever is less, vis-à-vis the Peerless Inn, Kolkata.
5. Learned senior counsel further argues that on an earlier occasion, a
writ petition was preferred by the present appellants against an earlier
similar order, which was disposed of vide order dated April 3, 2023. In
the said order passed in WPA 29125 of 2022, the learned Single Judge
had categorically observed that although ordinarily, taking note of the
submissions made on behalf of the State, the court would have
directed the petitioners/appellants to file an appeal before the
competent authority having jurisdiction, however, taking into
consideration the fact that the notice/order passed by the Registrar
was a non-speaking order, the remedy of appeal in the opinion of the
court could not stand as a bar.
6. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge, on the earlier occasion, had
directed the respondent-authorities to take into consideration the
returns filed by the writ petitioners/present appellants in requisite Form
H and readjudicate the matter.
7. It is submitted that such direction was flouted by the present impugned
order passed subsequently by the Registrar of Trade Unions, which
was under challenge before the writ court at the present instance.
8. Learned senior counsel submits that the findings of the Registrar of
Trade Unions, West Bengal, vide order dated July 20, 2023 traversed
beyond the grounds disclosed in the show cause notice, which was
confined to non submission of annual returns for more than three
years, as opposed to delayed submission of the same.

4

9. The other ground cited in the show cause notice was non compliance
of Section 9A of the 1926 Act, as amended, pertaining to the minimum
membership requirement not being satisfied, which has already been
addressed by the earlier arguments of the appellants.
10. The learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the State,
opposes the submissions of the appellants and contends that the order
dated July 20, 2023 was not confined to the information which was
allegedly not served on the appellants, but also adverted to several
other statutory infractions. For example, the annual returns were not
submitted by the appellant no. 2-Trade Union for eight successive
years between 2014 and 2021 and nine annual returns were filed
together at the end of October, 2022, that too by postal delivery.
11. Moreover, several other discrepancies in the said annual returns, as
pointed out in the said order, were also discovered by the authorities,
which also formed the ratio of the impugned order of the concerned
authority.
12. In any event, it is argued that the learned Single Judge has merely
referred the appellants to the appellate authority, such appeal being an
equally efficacious alternative remedy under Section 11 of the 1926
Act, and as such, there was no fault on such count on the part of the
learned Single Judge.
13. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3 controverts
the allegations made by the appellants, to the effect that the
respondent no. 3 had not furnished advance copy of the information-in-
question to the appellants.

5

14. Learned senior counsel takes the court through the order dated July
20, 2023 and argues that despite getting several opportunities, the
appellants chose not to be represented before the Registrar of Trade
Unions, resulting in the impugned order.
15. It is further submitted that in view of the appellants having chosen not
to attend by proper representation the hearings, it does not lie in the
mouth of the appellants to argue that no copy of the information or
documents relied on by the authorities were given to them.
16. Learned senior counsel further argues that the impugned order of the
writ court cannot be faulted, since the learned Single Judge not only
granted liberty to the appellants to file a proper statutory appeal but
also granted further time to do so beyond the statutory limitation
period. As such, no right the appellants was violated.
17. Learned senior counsel next contends that an alternative remedy, if
provided by the statute, can be bypassed by interference under Article
226 of the Constitution only under certain specific conditions, including
the violation of natural justice, the exercise being beyond jurisdiction or
a nullity.
18. It is submitted that none of the said conditions are satisfied in the
present case.
19. Learned senior counsel, by placing reliance on the relevant portions of
the order dated July 20, 2023, also points out that although the hearing
of the matter was concluded on June 26, 2023, even thereafter, the
appellant no. 2-Trade Union did not turn up with its registers and
records as sought by the Registrar of Trade Unions, nor did it submit

6

the annual till the date of the impugned order for the year ended on
December 31, 2022, the last date of submission of which was April 30,
2023 as per the Regulations 18 of the Bengal Trade Unions
Regulations, 1927.
20. In view of such multifarious infractions of statutory provisions and
norms, it is submitted that the impugned order was justified.
21. That apart, all the grounds taken before the writ court could very well
be taken before the appellate authority.
22. Upon careful consideration of the arguments of the parties, we find
substance in the arguments of the respondents.
23. Inasmuch as the observations of the learned Single Judge in the earlier
writ petition are concerned, those were confined to a direction on the
respondent-authorities to consider the returns filed by the appellants.
Such direction cannot be construed per se to be a direction on the
respondent-authorities to mandatorily accept the same or to validate
the said annual returns if they were violative of law.
24. Moreover, the observation of the learned Single Judge in the earlier
round of litigation to the effect that a writ petition was maintainable was
tied up with the particular circumstances of the case where, as per the
learned Single Judge, there was palpable infraction of natural justice,
due to which the earlier order passed by the respondent-authorities
was set aside and the matter remanded to the first authority.
25. However, merely on the strength of such observations, rendered in the
factual circumstances in the earlier case, it cannot be said that a writ
petition would be maintainable in the present case as well.

7

26. In the present instance, the order dated July 20, 2023, which was
challenged before the writ court, did not cite only the information,
which was allegedly not served upon the appellants, as the basis of the
said order but also referred to several other perceived infractions,
including the annual returns for eight successive years not being filed
in time between 2014 and 2021 as well as several other perceived
discrepancies in the returns which were placed before the authority.
27. Thus, per se , it cannot be said that the impugned order is violative of
the earlier direction of the writ court passed by the learned Single
Judge of this Court inasmuch as the returns filed by the appellants
were indeed considered by the authorities and a reasoned order was
passed, holding that those were violative of the law, by citing particular
provisions of law.
28. Insofar as the merits of the order dated July 20, 2023, we are loath to
enter into the merits of the same, since any observation thereon would
definitely affect the final outcome of the appeal, if any preferred by the
appellants against the said order.
29. Moreover, the limited scope for consideration before us is whether the
writ court was justified not entertaining the writ on the ground of
availability of the alternative remedy of appeal under Section 11 of the
1926 Act.
30. In view of our observations to the effect that the order dated July 20,
2023, assailed in the writ petition, was not confined to the information
vis-à-vis which violation of natural justice has been alleged but was
also based on other statutory infractions, which require a thorough

8

adjudication on facts as well as law, the learned Single Judge, in our
view, was justified in observing that an appeal under Section 11 of the
1926 Act would be the appropriate remedy. Such observation was one
of the plausible views which could be taken in the facts of the case and
cannot, thus, be readily interfered with in an intra-court appeal.
31. In any event, the scope of an appeal would be much wider than Article
226 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as disputed questions of fact
and law can very well be adjudicated in such appeal, including the
question of whether the copy of the information ought to have been
given to the appellants.
32. We do not express any opinion on the merits of the matter.
33. However, in view of the aforesaid findings, this Court is of the opinion
that the learned Single Judge was justified in relegating the appellants
to the appellate authority, subject to an appeal being filed by the
appellants.
34. Accordingly, FMA No. 1656 of 2025 is dismissed on contest, thereby
affirming the impugned order dated August 14, 2025 passed in WPA
No. 16813 of 2025 and granting liberty to the appellants to prefer an
appeal under Section 11 of the 1926 Act.
35. If such an appeal is preferred within thirty days from this date, the
same will be decided by the appellate authority in accordance with law
upon giving necessary opportunity of hearing to all concerned,
independently and without being influenced by any of the observations
made hereinabove or in the order impugned before us.
36. CAN 1 of 2026 is consequentially disposed of as well.

9

37. There will be no order as to costs.
38. Urgent Photostat certified copies of this judgment, if applied for, be
made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite
formalities.






(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)
I agree.


(Sandip Kumar De, J.)