Calcutta High Court
MAT/712/2026 of SAMIR GHOSH Vs FORT GLOSTER INDUSTRIES LIMITED AND ORS. on 3 September 2026
SL No.1 Court No.12 (gc) MAT 712 of 2026 CAN 1 of 2026 Samir Ghosh Vs. Fort Gloster Industries Limited & Ors. Ms. Senjuti Sengupta, Mr. Rananeesh Guha Thakurta, Mr. Rijuan Mandal …for the Appellant. Mr. S.N. Mookherjee, Sr. Adv., Mr. Soumya Majumder, Sr. Adv., Mr. Zulfiqar Ali
03.09.2026
SL No.1
Court No.12
(gc)
MAT 712 of 2026
CAN 1 of 2026
Samir Ghosh
Vs.
Fort Gloster Industries Limited & Ors.
Ms. Senjuti Sengupta,
Mr. Rananeesh Guha Thakurta,
Mr. Rijuan Mandal
…for the Appellant.
Mr. S.N. Mookherjee, Sr. Adv.,
Mr. Soumya Majumder, Sr. Adv.,
Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Alquaderi,
Ms. Yamini Mookherjee,
Mr. Keshav Tibarewalla
…for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Mr. Debapriya Gupta, Ld. AGP,
Mr. Biswanath Banerjee
…for the State.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The appeal has been assigned to us.
2. The learned Advocate for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge had mechanically granted stay of the order of the Controlling Authority and all proceedings relating to the gratuity payable to the appellant, only in view of the operation of a stay in respect of another appeal.
3. It is submitted that the two cases are unrelated and the learned Judge could not have stayed the proceedings by entertaining a writ petition at the instance of the respondents/company in spite of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal.
4. Mr. Mookherjee, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent/company submits that the said respondent is the successful resolution applicant. The said respondent has taken over the company on a clean slate theory. Certain percentage was set aside for payment of gratuity to the workers under the erstwhile management. The workers, who had come forward, have been paid. The appellant has also been paid.
5. The appellant, after a couple of years, claims a higher amount.
6. According to Mr. Mukherjee the demand is not sustainable, in view of ‘No Dues Certificate’ issued to the appellant. Such liability cannot be imposed on the successful resolution applicant.
7. In our view, the issue requires adjudication. It is submitted that another appeal on a similar issue is pending. In this case, the writ petition is yet to be decided. We do not find any perversity in the order impugned.
8. We request the learned Single Judge having determination to dispose of the writ petition expeditiously, upon considering the issues involved.
9. Affidavit-in-opposition to the writ petition shall be filed by the appellant within two weeks from date. Reply thereto, if any, be filed within one week thereafter.
10. Liberty is granted to the parties to mention the matter before the learned Single Judge, for early hearing of the writ petition.
11. Accordingly, the appeal and the connected application are disposed of.
12. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
13. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on usual undertaking.
(Shampa Sarkar, J.)
(Arjun Ray Mukherjee, J.)