6th May, 2025
(D/L No.13)
Ct. No.4
(SKB)
W.P.C.T.85 of 2025
The General Manager,
Ammunition Factory Khadki, Pune
Versus
Bhartiya Samrakshan Kamgar
Sangh (R) and others
Mr. Ajay Chowbey,
Ms. Amrita Pandey
… for the petitioner.
Mr. Satadeep Bhattacharya,
Mr. Tanuj Kakrania,
Mr. Sanik Mukherjee,
Ms. Surabhi Mehta,
Ms. Sriparna Mitra
… for the respondent no.1.
1. The writ petition has been filed alleging that the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench
(in short ‘Tribunal’) has disposed of the Original
Application, filed on 17.09.2021, two days
thereafter on 20.09.2021. The Tribunal has
disposed of the OA without giving any opportunity
to the present writ petitioner/respondent before
the Tribunal of filing a reply or ensuring
representation in the proceedings. Issue of
jurisdiction was also raised.
2. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1, on
the other hand, submits that notice was served in
advance at the time of filing. The petitioner chose
not to appear, when the matter was taken up on
2
20th September, 2021. The petitioner is thus
precluded from contending that opportunity was
not given to the petitioner.
3. A bare perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal
in O.A. No.1483 of 2021 on 20.09.2021 reveals
that on the very first day, when the matter was
listed, the Tribunal has proceeded to dispose of
the Original Application.
4. We find that without allowing any opportunity to
the respondents for ensuring appearance, as the
matter had just been filed on 17.09.2021, the
Tribunal has proceeded to dispose of the
application on 20.09.2021.
5. In such view of the matter, the court is of the
prima facie opinion that the order was
unsustainable.
6. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the
respondent no.1 submits that the order only
directs the present petitioner who was respondent
no.2 before the Tribunal to consider the claim of
the writ petitioner with regard to the benefits of
overtime allowance being included amongst the
various other allowances, w.e.f. 2006.
7. Since there was no mandatory direction upon the
respondents, they ought to have complied with
3
the same when the order was brought to their
notice by the applicants/respondents.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner responds by
submitting that such directions for consideration
have been given in paragraph 5 of the impugned
order passed by the Tribunal. However, in
paragraph 6, mandatory directions have been
issued for releasing the dues in favour of the
members of the Union. Such mandatory
directions are unsustainable having been passed
in violation of the principles of natural justice,
without even giving any opportunity of
appearance to the present writ petitioner in the
proceedings before the Tribunal.
9. On consideration of the rival submissions, we find
that the prime concern of the
applicant/respondent is consideration of his claim
by the respondents.
10. The writ petitioner’s only objection is
regarding the directions contained in paragraph 6
of the impugned order. We thus modify the order
of the Tribunal dated 20.09.2021 to the extent
that the present writ petitioner would not be
under any liability or obligation to release the
dues in terms of the directions passed in
paragraph 6 of the order passed by the Tribunal,
4
unless they have found the applicants to be
entitled to such benefits in accordance with law.
If, however, the authorities are of the view that the
applicants/respondents are not entitled to any
benefit, it will be open to the
applicants/respondents to assail such order
before a forum of competent jurisdiction.
11. In view of the modification, we extend the
time for consideration by the writ petitioner to
eight weeks from date.
12. The writ petition stands disposed of
accordingly.
13. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order,
if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon
compliance of all formalities.
(Madhuresh Prasad, J.)
(Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)
