Buddha Prasad Pal v. Mecon Ltd. & ORS

22.07.2022 Item no. 6 Aloke Ct. no.29 WPCRC 66 (W) of 2019 in WPA 11308 of 2010 Sri Buddha Prasad Pal Vs.

Sri Goutam Chattopadhyay & Ors.

Mr. Shyamal Kr. Das Ms. Smita Pal Ms. Krishna Yadav ...for the petitioner Mr. Soumya Majumdar Ms. Sanjukta Dutta Mr. Rishav Maity ... ... for the alleged contemnor nos. 2 and 3 Petitioner complains of violation of the order dated September 3, 2018.

The contempt rule was issued.

It is submitted in Court that subsequent to the Appeal Court's order certain payments were made. Largely pensionary benefits are yet to be disbursed.

Learned Advocate appearing for the alleged contemnors submits that the petitioner was engaged in a non-pensionary service. Therefore, according to him, no pension is payable by the company.

In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the alleged contemnors are in willful violation of the order dated September 3, 2018.

The petitioner is at liberty to avail of his remedy before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.

In such circumstances, Rule issued is discharged.

(Debangsu Basak, J.)