M/S HINDUSTAN FERTILIZER CORPORATION LTD & ANR vs FIRST LABOUR COURT, W B & ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon’ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)

WPA 7817 of 2012

M/S. Hindusthan Fertilizer Corporation & Anr.
Vs
First Labour Court, W. B. & Ors.


For the Petitioners : Mr. Soumya Majumder, Ld. Sr. Adv.
Mr. Victor Chatterjee,
Mr. Ranit Ray.


For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. Balai Chandra Paul,
Ms. Tithi Roy.


Judgment reserved on : 11.08.2026
Judgment delivered on : 02.09.2026
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.:

1. The writ application has been preferred challenging memo No.
213/24/12/FL/LC dated 24.02.2012, and order dated 17.01.2011
i n computation case no.2 of 2009 passed by the First Labour
Court, Kolkata, relating to an Order of Reference No. 3401-
I.R.IR/11L-245/83 dated 19.11.1983 and an award dated
19.06.1998 passed by the learned Seventh Industrial Tribunal,

2

West Bengal, Calcutta in Case No. VIII-325 of 1983 and G. O. No.
3401-I.R. dated 19.11.1983.
2. The petitioners’ case in short is that the said order purports to
recover dues for the pre-termination as well as post-termination
dues of the private respondent on the basis of an industrial award
dated 19.06.1998 by which the private respondent was directed to
be reinstated in service with full back wages.
3. It is stated that the private respondent was working in a Project
which was closed on 05.08.1986. The appointment letter would
also exhibit that Indo-German Fertilizer Educational Project had
engaged the private respondent on a temporary basis relating to a
project work. The project was closed. The award was passed
against a different entity, and not against the company.
4. The petitioners state that the principal question that is flagged
for consideration is, whether the proceeding under Section
33C(2) of the I.D. Act can be maintained for execution of an
industrial award, against a company which was not a party to
the adjudicatory proceeding under Section 10 of the I.D. Act.
Act.
5. Under no circumstances can a party suffer a civil
consequences, if the decree was not passed against it. The
same principle is contained in the provision of Section 18(3)
of the I.D. Act, 1947. The petitioner/company was added in
the mid-stream of the 33C(2) proceeding by order dated
12.07.2000.

3

6. The petitioners further state that not only did the project where
the private respondent was engaged, close down in 1986, the
company itself has become inoperative completely since 2003.
If the other workers of the project have not been paid wages post
the closure of the said project, then the private respondent is
also not entitled to any amount of wages after the closure of the
project in 1986.
7. The dispute was raised against the project, the statement of
case was filed by the workman against the project, and the
project defended the adjudicatory proceeding.
8. The private respondent had worked in the project for a very short
tenure (02.02.1976-04.07.1977) i.e. 1 year 5 months. Through
the 33C(2) application he claimed wages for 21 years. In the
entire process he has not shown that he ever wanted to
enforce the other part of the award i.e., reinstatement against
the petitioner company, as there was no company/project any
more in existence.

9. The petitioners have, thus, prayed for setting aside of the
impugned order.
10. Petitioners rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Anees
Khan reported in (2014) 8 SCC 900. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the
judgment are quoted below:-
“7. From the counter-affidavit filed by the workman,
there is nothing to show that any proceeding was
initiated by him for enforcement of order of reinstatement

4

dated 7-2-1994 in his favour. His only claim in the
application dated 17-3-2001 is for back wages up to 31-
3-2001. In these circumstances, there appears to be
substance in the plea that the workman abandoned his
right to seek reinstatement and his conduct in not
reporting for duty disentitles him even to back wages.
The workman worked for less than one year without any
regular appointment. Though the order of the Labour
Court dated 7-2-1994 became final and in proceedings to
enforce the said order, the workman was paid back
wages from 1-7-1992 to 7-2-1994, since he did not report
for duty nor took any proceedings for seeking
enforcement of order of reinstatement, he could not be
allowed any further relief. Thus, the appeal filed by the
State deserves to succeed.
8. Taking an overall view of the matter in the peculiar
facts and circumstances, while holding that the workman
is not entitled to any further relief, we consider it
appropriate to direct the State to pay a sum of Rs. 1 lakh
to the workman within three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgement.”
11. The petitioners by way of supplementary affidavit have brought on
record certain documents wherein it appears that the petitioners
herein is the party against whom the applicant/workman has
filed the application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act.

12. Parties have filed their written notes and the respondent/workman
has argued that the petitioner company, Hindustan Fertiliser
Corporation limited, in the course of proceedings, asserted
that it is a distinct and separate legal entity from Indo-
German Fertiliser Educational Project, and thereby sought to
disclaim any employer-employee relationship with the present
workman.

5

13. That such a contention was categorically rejected by the Learned
First Labour Court vide its order dated 12/07/20, under Section
33C(2) of the I.D. Act, wherein it was explicitly held that
Hindustan Fertiliser Corporation Limited and the Indo-
German Fertiliser Project are not separate entities for the
purpose of determining the employer-employee relationship in
the context of the present industrial dispute though the
petitioner was not a party to the award which is being
implemented. The said order unequivocally identified Hindustan
Fertiliser Corporation Limited as the Opposite Party, in place of
Indo German project which had admittedly closed down and was
the only party against whom the initial award was passed.
14. The case of the private respondent herein is that the petitioner
company at no point in time, either in the form of a review
application or by preferring an appeal or revision, ever challenged
the aforesaid order of the Learned Labour Court which declared
Hindustan Fertiliser Corporation Limited to be the proper party to
the proceeding. On the contrary, the petitioner voluntarily
participated and actively contested the matter on merits before
the Learned Court, thereby waiving any objection as to its locus.
15. That in the course of the proceedings, the respondent herein
specifically brought on record that the Indo-German Fertiliser
Educational Project was directly controlled, managed, and
administered by the Hindustan Fertiliser Corporation Limited,

6

thereby further establishing the employer-employee nexus between
the parties.
16. The respondent/workman has, thus, prayed for dismissal of this
case.
17. On hearing the parties and considering the materials on record, it
appears that though admittedly the private respondent were
engaged with the Indo-German Fertiliser Educational Project,
against whom the initial award was passed, the impugned order
under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act has been
passed against the petitioner no. 1 herein, on the finding that “it
is the successor” of the said project.
18. Vide its order dated 17.01.2011 which is under challenge in the
present writ application, the Labour Court in its judgment and
order added the present petitioner as a party in the
computation case on the ground that service upon the Indo-
German Fertiliser Educational Project could not be effected as it
was returned with the endorsement “left”. The Labour Court
was of the view that the present petitioner no. 1 “is the successor
in interest” of the Indo-German Fertiliser Educational Project and
as such passed the impugned order against the present petitioner.
19. The petitioner no. 1 herein before the Labour Court categorically
submitted that it was not a party to the award on the basis of
which the computation case was initiated and as such no order
directing payment by the petitioner no. 1 could be passed.

7

20. The petitioner no. 1’s case was that the Indo-German Fertiliser
Educational Project was a project for a fixed tenure and the
same closed down after the period of the project was over and the
engagement of the persons involved with the project including the
respondent herein was clear and unequivocal, that it was an
independent project and was never a part of Hindustan Fertiliser
Corporation Limited, the petitioner no. 1 herein and the said
respondent could not in any manner claim benefit or
reinstatement in the petitioner company, as admittedly no
employment given to the respondent by the petitioner no. 1 herein.
21. Admittedly the private respondent was engaged in the Indo-
German Project, initiated by an agreement dated 31.12.1971 (on
collaboration with federal republic of Germany) as a joint venture.
22. The private respondent joined on 02.02.1976 for a period of
one month only temporary basis. The engagement was
renewed time to time as the project work continued.
23. The said respondent was released from his service on 30.06.1977
(after 7 months) and the project (closed down in 1985) and then
the employee raised the industrial dispute.
24. So it appears that the respondent was never engaged with the
petitioner no. 1 herein. It was only for the project purpose, which
was of temporary nature all along (closed down in 1985) till it was
completed.
25. The labour Court added the petitioner no. 1, when the project
had admittedly closed down and could not be served, in a

8

proceeding under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act, by treating
the petitioner no. 1 as a successor in interest. Petitioners rely
upon the judgment in GKW Limited -vs- 5th I.T., West Bengal
& Ors. (1996 (1) LLN 106 (Cal-DB), against the said findings of
the labour Court.
26. Thus the impugned award suffers from inherent errors in the
findings of the tribunal, as already discussed. Points are
summarised as follows:-
a) The petitioner no. 1 was admittedly not a party to the award
under Section 10 of the I.D. Act.
b) The respondent/employee was employed with the project
only on temporary basis (initially monthly), then remained
with the project for about 7 (seven) months.
c) The project closed down in 1985. The award was passed in
1998, when the project had already closed down.
d) During the pendency of the reference, no steps were taken
for adding the petitioner no. 1 as a party, in place of the
project, which had already closed down.
e) The scope of the respondent’s claim stood closed, when an
independent project closed down and no claim was ever
made before the petitioner no. 1 which is an independent
entity.
27. It is at the time of execution that the labour has added the
petitioner no. 1 and proceeded against it, in a claim under Section

9

33C(2) of the I.D. Act, when the petitioner no. 1 was not even a
party to the award from which the present claim was made.
28. It is thus clear that the employee worked for about 7 (seven)
months without any regular appointment and his initial claim is
entirely against a project which admittedly closed down during the
pendency of the initial reference. But no steps were taken to
implead the petitioner no. 1 herein, who for the first time has been
added by the labour Court citing succession, which again is clearly
an erroneous finding.
29. Thus the petitioner no. 1 herein cannot be saddled with a liability,
which is not its responsibility in the first place, moreso, when the
initial claim was neither against it nor was it made a party, (even
though the project had already closed down) during pendency of
the reference.
30. There was/is thus no employer-employee relation between the
private respondent and the petitioner no. 1 herein, which again
cannot be decided afresh at the stage of a proceeding under
Section 33C(2) of the Act, when the said proceeding is only a
process to execute the initial award and being an executing Court
it has to confine itself to the award sought to be executed and not
go behind the award deciding issues afresh.
31. Thus memo No. 213/24/12/FL/LC dated 24.02.2012, and order
dated 17.01.2011 in computation case no.2 of 2009 passed by the
First Labour Court, Kolkata, are hereby quashed and set aside.
32. WPA 7817 of 2012 is thus allowed.

10

33. Applications, if any, connected thereto stand disposed of
consequently.
34. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
35. 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.)