Shri. A.Kameswar Rao v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/35/2025 Shri A. Kameshwar Rao Vs The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and others Mr. C.Mano ... for the petitioner [on behalf of Mr. KMB Jayapal] Mr. Rakesh Kumar ... for the respondents February 26, 2025 [SR] Item no.9 1.

Mr. C. Mano, learned advocate appears for the petitioner. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned advocate appears for the respondents.

2.

The petitioner claims to have worked with the respondent no.2 as Daily Rated Mazdoor.

The petitioner claims regularisation of his employment along with all consequential benefits.

3.

Similarly placed persons have already applied before the jurisdictional re-conciliation officer under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ID Act). The reconciliation having been failed, the issue was referred before the jurisdictional appropriate authority for reference to be made before the jurisdictional Labour Court under the Act. Reference for such similarly placed persons for about 47 individuals are now presently pending before the jurisdictional Labour Court under the Act.

4.

At this juncture, since the petitioner did not apply before the Conciliation Officer, straightway applied before the Labour

Court for being added to be as the first party in the reference pending before the jurisdictional Labour Court. 5.

By an order dated December 03, 2024, the Labour Court has rejected the prayer of the petitioner. Such application was rejected on contest that since the case of the petitioner was not referred before the jurisdictional Labour Court following due procedure prescribed under the law.

6.

Being aggrieved by the said order, dated December 03, 2024, the instant writ petition has been filed. 7.

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned advocate appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner should have applied before the jurisdictional conciliation officer first, in accordance with law and then if his case was to be referred after the conciliation being failed, then, the competent authority would have the jurisdiction to consider it and thereafter the same may be referred before the jurisdictional Labour Court, in accordance with law. Bypassing all these procedures prescribed under the law, the petitioner has filed this writ petition and accordingly this writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected.

8.

After considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court is of the view that, bypassing the legal procedures, when the relevant provisions of the Act shows that the application of mind is necessary by different statutory authorities, this writ petition is not maintainable. For application of mind by such statutory authorities it also require to appreciate various facts and then only to form its own opinion, the writ court is not a fact finding court at the first instance.

9.

In view of the above, the petitioner is granted liberty to apply before the jurisdictional conciliation officer under the ID Act. In the event, such an application is filed by the petitioner, the jurisdictional conciliation officer shall deal with the same after granting an opportunity of hearing to the parties to the proceeding and shall conclude the reconciliation proceeding, by passing a reasoned order positively within a period of six weeks from the date of receiving the application from the petitioner. 10.

In the event the conciliation fails, the matter shall be referred by the conciliation officer before the appropriate competent authority positively within a period of two weeks from the date of reasoned order to be passed by him by transmitting all the relevant records before the competent authority.

11.

The competent authority then positively within a further period of two weeks from the date of receiving the reference from the Conciliation Officer shall refer the matter before the jurisdictional Labour Court positively within a period of two weeks from the date of receiving the records from the Conciliation Officer.

12.

The petitioner, thereafter, shall take necessary steps, in accordance with law and the jurisdictional Labour Court shall decide the issue as expeditiously as possible by granting an opportunity of hearing to the parties, in accordance with law. 13.

It is made clear that this court has not gone into the merits of the claim of the petitioner and the petitioner shall be at liberty to urge whatever points he wishes to urge, by relying upon whatever records and documents he wishes to rely upon before the Conciliation Officer.

14.

Since affidavits are not called for, the allegations made in this writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents.

15.

With the above observations and directions, this writ petition WPA/35/2025 stands disposed of, without any order as to costs.

( Aniruddha Roy, J. )