C o u r t N . 2 2 S l 1 5 1 / C L 11.09.26 D/L Sl-01 Ct. 07 (Samar) W.P.A. 1 WPA 4489 of 2025 < Somenath Pramanick @ Ujjal Ray -Vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Prabir Kumar Bhowmick, Mr. Anirban Saha, …for the petitioner. Mr. Tapas Kumar Chattrjee, Mr. Sourav Kumar Mukherjee, Ms. Sruti Datta, ….for the State respondent. 1. The petitioner assails an order dated Against 27, 2019 passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas whereby the petitioner’s claim for the death benefits of one late Ira Ray has been declined. 2. The petitioner claims to be the son of late Ira Ray who was a beneficiary under the Samajik Surakha Yojana SASPFUW (REG. No. 170000035). 3. Late Ira Ray had nominated her son name Ujjal Ray as the person who would be entitled to receive the death benefits upon her demise. 4. The petitioner applied for the same however, the petitioner’s application has been declined by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Barrackpore, North 24-Parganas by the order impugned. Feeling aggrieved thereby the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 5. Mr. Bhowmick, learned advocate appearing for the 2 petitioner submits that the Deputy Labour Commissioner has passed an order which is perverse inasmuch as the Deputy Labour Commissioner has misread the voters identity card and held that the petitioner’s date of birth is 19/10/1989 while the card shows the petitioners of birth as 19/10/1981. He produces a photostat copy of the said card to demonstrate that there is a glaring error in the Deputy Labour Commissioner order. 6. He also submits that the petitioner’s mother had duly published the factum of change of her name from Ira Ray to Ira Pramanick in the news paper upon affirming an affidavit to that extent. It is submitted that the same has also not been considered by the Deputy Labour Commissioner while passing the order impugned. 7. Learned advocate appearing for the State respondents submits that the order impugned passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner is absolutely valid. It is submitted that the same is a well reasoned order and has been passed upon taking into consideration all the material on record. 8. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and consider the material on record. 9. The order dated August 27, 2019 is indeed well 3 reasoned order. 10. The order records that the petitioner was unable to submit any document to prove that he was the son of late Ira Ray. It records that the voter identity card of the petitioner showed that date of birth of the petitioner was 19.10.1989 while the affidavit dated January 16, 2018 affirmed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class indicated that Utpal Ray i.e. husband of late Ira Ray on dated on October 13, 1982. The authority has thus reasoned that the petitioner’s assertion that the petitioner was the son of late Ira Ray was not believable. Such reasoning cannot be faulted. 11. However, Mr. Bhowmick has relied on photostat copy of the voter identity card in Court today, to show that the same shows the petitioner’s date of birth as 19/10/1981. A Photostat copy of the voter card would not be sufficient for this Court to dislodge the order dated August 27, 2019 passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner. This Court exercising writ jurisdiction should refrain from entering into disputed questions of fact. 12. Furthermore, the voter card by itself would not be sufficient to prove that the petitioner is the son of late Ira Ray. The order dated August 27, 2019, is therefore no interfered with. 13. However, the petitioner is left free to make a proper 4 representation before the Deputy Labour Commissioner annexing therewith all relevant documents in support of the petitioner’s claim that the petitioner is the son of late Ira Ray. Documents proving such fact as well as the fact that the findings rendered by the Deputy Labour Commissioner that the petitioner’s date of birth is 19/10/1989 is incorrect would also be appended with the said representation. If such a representation is made within two weeks from date, the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Barrackpore, North 24-Parganas shall consider the same and in case, the Deputy Labour Commissioner finds that the petitioner’s case is genuine and the petitioner is entitled to the benefit as claimed, the Deputy Labour Commissioner would proceed to pass appropriate orders without being influenced by the order dated August 27, 2019, which has not been interfered with by this Court since the exercise as regards factual finding should at the first instance be done by the same authority which passed the order. 14. It is made clear that the order passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner shall be passed after hearing the petitioner and consulting all the material on record. 15. It is not necessary that the Deputy Labour 5 Commissioner would have to vary the order, however, if it finds that there is reason to correct the same on the basis of the documents produced by the petitioner, and the documents are genuine and authentic which could not be brought on record, Deputy Labour Commissioner would proceed to pass appropriate orders, taking the same into consideration. 16. Such exercise must be concluded within a period of eight weeks from the date of the petitioner’s making the representation. The reasoned order shall be communicated to the petitioner within a week from passing thereof. 17. With the above observations, WPA 4489 of 2025 stands disposed of. No Costs. 18. It is made clear that the claim of the petitioner as regards the petitioners being the son of late Ira Ray has been gone into by this Court and the point will ultimately be decided by the Deputy Labour Commissioner upon considering the fresh material that may be brought on record, if any. 19. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. (Om Narayan Rai, J.)