Allowed¶18

Union of India and Ors. v. Ajay Tiwari and Ors.

Calcutta HC11 May 2026FMA/337/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Union of India v. Ajay Tiwari — FMA 337 of 2026 (with CAN 2 of 2025 and CAN 3 of 2025), decided 11.05.2026. Appeal against Single Bench judgment dated 16.05.2025 in a workmen's writ petition concerning employees of Rifle Factory, Ichapur (contractual vs. deemed permanent status). Held: writ petition not entertainable while disputes were pending in a reference before the CGIT at Kolkata, even if the Tribunal was not functioning; impugned order set aside; appeal allowed; parties free to avail remedies against the Tribunal's award when published. No statutes or precedents cited in the judgment.

What did the court decide?

FMA 337 of 2026 allowed; impugned judgment and order dated 16.05.2025 of the Single Bench set aside; all pending applications disposed of; parties may avail any remedy against the Tribunal's award as and when it is published.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Ajay Tiwari and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the Single Bench erred in entertaining the workmen's writ petition when their disputes were already pending adjudication in a reference before the CGIT at Kolkata, and whether the impugned judgment dated 16.05.2025 should be set aside.

¶12

Court's answer

The writ petition ought not to have been entertained since the workmen had already availed statutory remedies and the dispute was pending adjudication in a reference before the CGIT at Kolkata.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

The Single Bench erred in entertaining a writ petition which was the subject matter of a pending reference, even if the Tribunal was not functioning; disputes as to continued employment, status of the workmen and alteration of conditions of service should have been raised before the Tribunal.

¶12

Key takeaways

The Tribunal's ultimate award may address both the concerns of the employees as well as the employer (sentence garbled in source text).¶12
The impugned order dated 16.05.2025 passed by the Single Bench shall stand set aside.ratio¶15
The parties may avail any remedy against the award as and when it is published.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench (Rajasekhar Mantha and Rai Chattopadhyay, JJ.) allowed FMA 337 of 2026 filed by the Union of India and set aside the judgment and order dated 16.05.2025 of the Single Bench whereby a writ petition of workmen of the Rifle Factory, Ichapur was entertained. Held: the writ petition ought not to have been entertained since the workmen had already availed statutory remedies and their disputes — entitlement to continued employment, status of the workmen, and alteration of conditions of service — were pending adjudication in a reference before the CGIT at Kolkata, a reference directed pursuant to earlier proceedings before this Court to decide whether the workmen were contractual employees or otherwise deemed permanent employees; the Single Bench erred even if the Tribunal was not functioning. The impugned judgment had been stayed by the Co-ordinate Bench at admission or soon thereafter. Counsel stated that the Tribunal's award has since been passed and its publication in the Gazette requested. The impugned order dated 16.05.2025 stands set aside; the parties may avail any remedy against the award as and when published; all pending applications disposed of.

¶1

11.05.2026 Court No.13 Item No. 6 pk

¶2

FMA 337 of 2026 CAN 2 of 2025 CAN 3 of 2025

¶3

The Union of India and others Vs.

¶4

Sri Ajay Tiwari and others

¶5

Mr. Asoke Kumar Chakrabarti, Mr. Ajit Kumar Mishra, Mr. Tapan Bhanja … for the appellants.

¶6

Ms. Malabika Saha

¶7

… for the respondent no. 6.

¶8

Mr. Brijendra Pratap Singh … for the applicant in CAN 3 of 2025.

¶9

The appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 16^th May, 2025 passed by a Single Bench of this Court. It appears that pursuant to earlier proceedings before this Court a reference was directed to be made by the Central Government to decide as to whether the respondent workman were contractual employees or otherwise deemed permanent employees of the Rifle Factory, Ichapur. 2. During pendency of the reference, the workman claimed before the Single Bench that the services of some of them ought not to have been discontinued and the conditions of work of others cannot be altered.

¶10

This Court firstly notes that the writ petition ought not have been entertained since the workman have already availed statutory remedies and the same was pending adjudication in a reference before

¶11

¶12

the CGIT at Kolkata and all any disputes or differences with regard to the entitlement for continued employment, the status of the workman and alteration of condition of services before the Tribunal should have been raised before the Tribunal. The Single Bench therefore erred in entertaining the writ petition which was the subject matter of a pending reference, even if the Tribunal was not functioning. The ultimate award that the Tribunal may address both the concerns of the employees as well as the employer.

¶13

The impugned judgment was therefore rightly stayed by the Co-ordinate Bench at the time of admission or soon thereafter.

¶14

It is submitted by Mr. Asoke Kumar Chakraborti, learned Senior Advocate and Additional Solicitor General that the award has since been passed. It has been requested to be published in the Gazette as expeditiously as possible. The writ petition would have become infructuous even otherwise.

¶15