M/S CEMINDIA PROJECTS LIMITED vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

1

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE

BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL)

WPA 18033 of 2026

M/s. Cemindia Projects Limited
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjay De, Sr. Adv.
Mr. A.A. Bose.

For the Private Respondent No.3 : Mr. N. Rakshit,
Ms. Ashmita Chatterjee.

Judgment reserved on : 04.08.2026
Judgment delivered on : 03.09.2026
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.:-
1. The present writ application has been preferred challenging for setting
aside of an order dated 29.05.2026 passed by the respondent no.2 the
Referee under West Bengal Shops and Establishments Act, 1963,
Bidhannagar, North 24 Parganas, West Bengal. Vide the impugned order
the respondent no.3 held as follows:-
“Finally, with respect to the issue of limitation extending
beyond a period of ten years, it is hereby concluded that the
applicant concerned had filed herein substantial evidences,
the details of which had already been stated above, which
shows that even while he had been in persistent ill-health
condition leading to his restrictions in mobility simultaneously,
he had been in constant persuasion with the O.P. Company for

2

his alleged outstanding dues Moreover, even during the
pendency of the instant case, as is apparent from the records,
he had been hospitalized and had to pray for an adjournment
of proceedings. Thus, it is highly felt that refusing to entertain
an application of an elderly, persistently ill septuagenarian
citizen at this preliminary stage, who had been in constant
persuasion for his alleged outstanding balance dues, would
essentially mean negating a claim at the very threshold
without giving reasonable opportunities of being heard. It
would also tantamount to negation of the principle of natural
justice as well Hence, it is opined and concluded that the
delay caused in filing of the instant application had been well
explained by the applicant through different documentations
and therefore depending on the facts and circumstances of the
instant case, it stands condoned That whether any amount as
is alleged by the applicant through this instant application is
actually lying outstanding or not is felt can be ascertained
only through further proceedings of law considering the
alleged point being raised by the applicant of a bipartite
meeting being held on 21/02/2012, days before his actual
cessation of employment from the O.P. Company. Moreover, it
is observed that the records and documentations have been
well maintained by both the parties concerned with respect to
the instant case, and hence searching for the same would not
be of much inconvenience to either of them.
Thus, the petition of the OP dated 15/12/2022 pertaining to
preliminary objections stands overruled and cannot be
considered Furthermore, the preliminary issues being decided
upon, the instant application is admitted on merit. The O.P.
Company is directed to file their written objection/ written
statement in duplicate on the main merit of the instant

3

application on the next date of appearance to be fixed on
25/06/2026 at 1:30 pm. Inform both the parties by issuing
notices vide Speed Post/email/Special Messenger.”
2. The petitioner’s case is that by a letter dated 14.01.2009, the private
respondent was appointed as Deputy General Manager on probation for a
period of 6 months by ITD Cementation India Limited, being the
erstwhile company. The letter of Appointment was issued by the Vice
President Human Resources & Admin of the said company having his
office at Mumbai and the same was received by the private respondent
accordingly. The place of posting of the private respondent was Airport
Project Site. The petitioner also stated that by a Letter dated 03.08.2009,
his service was confirmed by the management of the erstwhile company
and the said letter was also issued from Mumbai. The private
respondent by an email dated 24.02.2012 submitted his resignation
addressing the same to the General Manager (HR), ITD Cementation
India Ltd, Kalina, Mumbai. At this time, he was posted to work at the
Kolkata Airport Construction Project.
3. By a letter dated 29.02.2012, the Letter of Resignation of the Private
Respondent was accepted by the General Manager Human Resources of
the erstwhile company having its office at Mumbai. Accordingly he was
also issued with a Certificate on 21.05.2012 confirming his tenure of
employment from the Mumbai office.
4. The petitioner states that although as per Clause 5 of the said Letter of
Appointment dated 14.01.2009, the private respondent was not entitled

4

to any amount other than 3 months Notice Pay, the Management paid to
him a sum of Rs. 11, 12, 816.03/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Twelve
Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixteen and Three Paisa) Only on following
heads:-
Sl.
Particulars Amount
No.
1 Amount paid towards full and final (3
774,085.00
months Gross salary, Leave Encashment,
All Legal Dues being paid)
2 Payment of Superannuation (paid upto
115,452.00
31.03.2012)
3 Payment of Superannuation (paid upto
223,279.03
31.03.2012)
Total Amount Paid 11,12,816.03

5. The said amount was duly received by the private respondent by way of a
Cheque dated 03.05.2012 consequent upon tendering of resignation as
on 24.02.2012 but the Private Respondent after a period of more
than 10 years of severance of his employer - employee relationship,
in the year 2022, filed an application being FORM-N under the West
Bengal Shops and Establishments Act, 1963 before the Respondent No. 2
for compensation in the name of "RECOVERY OF WAGES" totaling to Rs.
4, 30, 656/- along with interest applicable thereon. Accordingly, the said

5

FORM N was forwarded by the Respondent no.2 by issuing a Memo in
Form O dated 30.11.2022.
6. The petitioner challenges the maintainability of the Form N before the
respondent no.2 on the ground of delay and also that there was no
deduction of wages by the petitioner as claimed by the private
respondent. It was further argued that the respondent no.2 did not have
any jurisdiction as the West Bengal Shops and Establishment Act 1963
was not applicable in the case of the private respondent. The territorial
jurisdiction was also challenged. The point of the appropriate authority
was also taken before the respondent no.2.
7. It is further stated that as the claim of compensation made by the private
respondent that as no deduction has ever been made from the salary of
the private respondent as aforesaid, the question of compensation under
Section 14(3) of the said Act of 1963 has got no manner of applicability in
the present facts and circumstances of the matter.
8. The primary objection raised by the petitioner was overlooked by the
respondent no.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon
the judgment of M/s. Gupta Electric Company & Anr. v. The Learned
Chief Judge, Small Causes Court at Calcutta & Ors. reported in
1988 SCC OnLine Cal 19, held:-
“4. ……………. As observed earlier, the learned
Referee cannot enter into the disputed question of
fact as to whether there has been a wrongful
determination and as to whether the claimant has
been wrongfully debarred from attending to his work
which is outside the domain and/or jurisdiction of

6

the learned Referee inasmuch as serious disputes have
been raised with regard thereto. In the case of The
Managing Director, Jalpaiguri Electric Supply Co.
Ltd. v. The Authority under Payment of Wages Act,
reported in Volume 49 of the Indian Factories & Labour
Reports at page 49 G.N. Ray, J. was of the view that there
may not be inherent lack of jurisdiction of the Authority
under section 15(1) of the Payment of Wages Act to
entertain claims of workmen relating to the question of
„wages‟ and deduction of such „wages‟, but in the facts of
a case it may be necessary to go into intricate question of
law and fact relating to such claim of wages. In such
circumstances on the ground of expediency the Authority
under the Act should not entertain complicated questions
of facts and law relating to claim of wages and such claim
should be left to be decided by the authority under the
Industrial Disputes Act which is a special Act for dealing
with all questions between the workmen and the
employer. In that case also it was necessary to determine
as to whether or not retrenchment in fact and law had
taken place. It was essentially necessary to probe a little
deeper into the rival contentions made by the parties and,
in the exercise of the limited jurisdiction of the authority
concerned the learned Judge was of the view that it was
not desirable or expedient that the said Authority should
entertain such question. It is true that the said case was
decided under the Payment of Wages Act. In instant case
the claim has been made under the Shops and
Establishments Act. From the relevant provisions of the Act
it indicates that the Authority concerned has no jurisdiction
to enter into the question of fact and law. Under the
circumstances, this court is of view that the petitioner is
entitled to an order as prayed for……………..”

9.
It appears from clause 21 of the letter of appointment dated 2009, that
the contract clearly says that disputes are subject to the jurisdiction at
Mumbai only.
10. Admittedly the Form N has been filed on 11.11.2022 in respect of a
claim ending on 31.03.2012.

7

11. 10 years 7 months delay is evident. The cause shown and reasons
accepted by the referee are not in accordance with the law of limitation,
which if encouraged can never set at rest a case/claim indefinitely.
12. WPA 18033 of 2026 is allowed.
13. The order dated 29.05.2026 passed by the respondent no.2 the Referee
under West Bengal Shops and Establishments Act, 1963, Bidhannagar,
North 24 Parganas, West Bengal, is set aside.
14. Applications, if any, connected thereto stand disposed of consequently.
15. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
16. Photostat certified copy of this Judgment, if applied for, be given to the
parties on priority basis upon compliance of all formalities.


(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)