"Administrative High-Handedness": Calcutta High Court Sets Aside State's Move To Regulate Appointments To Private Industries

The Calcutta High Court has quashed a notification by the State of West Bengal through which the state government sought to regulate employment of persons to private industrial establishments.

Justice Ravi Kishan Kapur held: "Any restriction on a trade or business is unreasonable if it is arbitrary or drastic and has no relation to, or goes much in excess of, the objective of the law which seeks to impose it. The object of Article 19(1)(g) is that the freedom of carrying on a profession should be enjoyed by the citizen to the fullest possible extent without putting “shackles” of avoidable cobwebs of Rules and Regulations putting restrictions in the enjoyment of such freedoms."

"There is now a Committee under the impugned notification which is beyond the scope of a central legislation and contrary thereto. In short, the notification is an example of administrative highhandedness, palpably unreasonable, irrational and an antithesis to the Rule of Law. The right of industry to grant employment or seek employment cannot be regulated in such a circuitous manner as contemplated by the impugned notification," he added.

Petitioners contended that the notification has been issued without authority of law and dehors any statutory powers. The notification is also contrary to and in violation of the mechanism for settlement of industrial disputes under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947.

It was stated that on a combined reading of sections 2(p), 3, 4, 12 of the Act, it would be evident that the Act and Rules framed thereunder contemplate resolution of disputes by way of bipartite settlement whereas the impugned notification has introduced a mechanism of tripartite settlement with the active participation of the State.

It was argued that the notification also makes serious inroads into private industry. Additionally, in view of section 4 of the Employment Exchange Compulsory Notification of Vacancy (1959) Act, the impugned notification is an indirect attempt to bypass an existing statutory mechanism. As such, the impugned notification is ex facie arbitrary, illegal, unreasonable and has been issued in colourable exercise of power.

State respondents submitted that the petitioners have no locus to challenge the impugned notification. The petitioners claim to be a Trade Union representing the cause of workmen in the Haldia and Kolaghat Industrial Area of Purba Medinipur and are affiliated to a rival political party.

It was stated that there is nothing to suggest that any of the members of the petitioner have been affected by the impugned notification. Neither does the impugned notification threaten the rights of the workers to agitate their grievances. The primary objective of the impugned notification is to aid in the recruitment process.

It was argued that the impugned notification has been issued to maintain transparency in the process of recruitment in private establishment and also assists in the working of the portal created by the State namely Karma Sanghabad.

Initially, the notification was caused to be published as a pilot notification. Thereafter, different notifications for the entire State have been issued by the respondent State. On a combined reading of the different provisions of the Act, the participatory role of the State in employee welfare under the Act is recognized.

In holding that the state had no right to interfere with employment to private industries since the same would be violative of Article 19(1)(g), the Court also negated the argument on the petition being politically motivated. It held:

"The petitioner represents workmen of industries in two districts and in a representative capacity and has a right to raise an industrial dispute as defined under the Act. Similarly, the plea that the State is targeting a particular industrial belt in the State is immaterial and irrelevant. Regardless of the political flavour, which either of the parties may suggest, the legality and constitutionality of the notification is all which ought to be taken into consideration."

Case: Tata Steel Limited (Hooghly Met Coke Division) Haldia Contractors' Mazdoor Sangh and Another Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case No: W.P.A.8602 of 2023

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 257

Click here to read order