IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon’ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) WPA 17963 of 2026 M/s. Arora Matthey Limited Vs State of West Bengal & Anr. For the Petitioner : Mr. Soumya Majumder, ld. Sr. Adv. Mr. Sandip Kundu. For the Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Anuj Kr. Mishra, Mr. Suvadip Bhattacharjee, Mr. Balaram Patra. Judgment reserved on : 24.07.2026 Judgment delivered on : 24.07.2026 Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.: 1. Affidavit-of-service filed be kept with the record. On being served the respondent is being represented. 2. The writ application has been preferred being aggrieved by order nos. 27,28,29,30 and 31 passed by the Seventh Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal in Case No. 42/23 of 2010. 3. Vide the impugned orders the Tribunal considered a petition dated 22.04.2026 supported by affidavit filed by the petitioner/company praying for relief to rely upon additional document annexed to the said petition, along with another application filed by the 2 applicant/workman dated 06.05.2026, which the Court suo motu treated as an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. 4. It appears from the said application filed by the private respondent herein annexed to the writ application, was an application alleging perjury by the petitioner company and praying before the Tribunal for conducting a preliminary enquiry. 5. The Tribunal gave its findings as follows:- “6. Perusal of the document in question being purported letter dated 10.09.2013 for which leave is sought by the OP/Company by petition dated 19.02.2026 reveals that it is a letter dated 10.09.2013 which has been printed on the letter head of the OP/Company with ISO number of 2015. It leaves no doubt that the same is an ante-dated document manufactured for the purpose of this case before this Tribunal. The same has been filed during the pendency of the main proceeding. This Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that the same is a forged document. The explanation offered by the OP/Company does not hold water. 7. The forged document (letter dated 10.09.2013) was not a trivial one and the same goes to the very root of the controversy in the main case. The OP/Company vide the said letter in question tried to ascribe the status of supervisor to the applicant/workman which goes to the root of the matter and tried to put the applicant in the category of supervisor and oust him from the definition of workman which is prerequisite for maintaining an application u/sec. 2A(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before this Tribunal. Leaving such a deliberate attempt to mislead a Tribunal/Court of law unpunished would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.” 3 6. The Tribunal then proceeded to reject the petitioners application dated 22.04.2026 with cost of Rs.10 lakhs to be paid by the opposite party/company therein to the applicant/workman and further proceeded to record serious observations regarding the offence of forgery against the company without admittedly conducting any enquiry, preliminary or otherwise. More so, it appears that the said Tribunal did not even consider or record the submission of the petitioner/company which was placed before the Court in its application praying for adducing document. It was categorically stated in the said application, which is dated 22.04.2026, in paragraph 5 by the company, as follows:- “5. That after confirmation of his employment as Assistant supervisor with effect from 09.07.2014 the said job roaster/Letter dated 10.09.2013 which was saved/stored in the server computer of the company was again served upon him by me upon the instruction of the management by taking a print out of the contents of the said letter on a current letter head pad of the company i.e. of the year 2015.” 7. In the written objection to the application filed by the workman alleging perjury, the company specifically by filing a written objection denied the same and further reiterated that the said letter dated 10.09.2013 was printed on a certified letter ISO 2015 as the said content of the letter was in their records and was served upon the workman on printing the same in ISO 2015. 8. Considering the strong observations made by the Tribunal, without even conducting a preliminary enquiry and without even 4 discussing the statement or the objection/defence of the petitioner/company in its order which shall have serious reparcation/effect on the company, if the same is allowed to remain, this Court is of the view that, it is most unfortunate, when an officer of the Tribunal holding a responsible post, while passing such an order has been swayed by such strong negative emotion. 9. It was the duty of the Tribunal to not only conduct a preliminary enquiry but also to discuss and put on record, the defence/objection the company took, into consideration, in the impugned order. The conduct of the officer, not only is against the principle of natural justice but also a clear abuse of the process of law and Court. 10. It is now for this Court to see as to the nature document on which such serious view has been taken. A copy of the document has been annexed at page 111 to the writ application. 11. Admittedly, the workman joined the petitioner’s company on 30.04.2012 and appointment letter was issued to the workman which is at page 76 to the writ application, wherein certain terms and conditions of the employment was provided. 12. Vide the letter dated 10.09.2013 which is the letter, on which the impugned order has been passed, it appears that it is a letter issued to the workman stating the nature of duties merely in the line of work order. 13. It appears from the evidence of the workman in affidavit-in-chief filed before the Tribunal that he admits that he was working under the works manager Sabir Ali Mandal. It is the same person who has 5 issued the disputed letter dated 10.09.2013 laying down the nature of duties of the workman. As such the contention of the company that the letter dated 10.09.2013 was already part of their office record, when the same was required to be produced before the Court has merit. The same has been printed on the said certified letter ISO 2015 for placing the same before the tribunal. This by itself prima facie does not make a case of perjury and the stand taken by the Tribunal is not only erroneous, but also an abuse of the process of law. More so when the Tribunal did not even proceed to conduct even a preliminary enquiry and also did not even take into consideration the prima facie logical explanation of the petitioner. 14. Accordingly, the impugned orders nos. 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 passed by the Seventh Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal in Case No. 42/23 of 2010, being not in accordance with law and against the principle of natural justice and also a clear abuse of the process of law, are quashed and set aside. 15. The tribunal shall proceed with the case in accordance with law. Consequently, the application dated 06.05.2026 filed by the applicant/workman/respondent before the Tribunal herein also stands rejected. 16. The Tribunal shall consider the application dated 22.04.2026 and the said document filed by the petitioner/company and shall admit the same in evidence, in accordance with law, with objection, if any and shall consider the admissibility of the said document and its reliability, at the time of final disposal of the said proceeding. 6 17. Writ application stands disposed of. 18. Applications, if any, connected thereto stand disposed of consequently. 19. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 20. 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.)