Dismissed¶20

Radhakrishna Mani Tripathi v. L. H. Patel & Anr.

Supreme Court21 Nov 20082008 INSC 1332 · [2008] 16 S.C.R. 4902008 INSC 1332

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ex-parte award recall by Labour Court after 30 days of publication; functus officio objection rejected; Rule 26(2) Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules 1957 not in conflict with Section 17-A Industrial Disputes Act 1947; award without notice a nullity; sufficient cause non-appearance; Grindlays Bank (1980) Supp SCC 240 explained; Anil Sood (2001) 10 SCC 534 relied on; reinstatement award set aside and reference restored for fresh hearing; Supreme Court appeal dismissed without costs.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; the Labour Court's recall of the ex-parte award (confirmed by the High Court) stands. No costs imposed having regard to the fact that the appellant is a workman. ¶20

Radhakrishna Mani Tripathi versus L. H. Patel & Anr. — Supreme Court (2008) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; the Labour Court's recall of the ex-parte award (confirmed by the High Court) stands. No costs imposed having regard to the fact that the appellant is a workman.

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether, on expiry of 30 days from the publication of the ex-parte award, the Labour Court became functus officio so that entertaining any application for recall thereafter would be beyond its authority. +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

The order of the Labour Court recalling the ex-parte award was completely in accordance with Rule 26(2) of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957: the recall petition was filed by respondent no.1 within two days of receipt of a copy of the award, well within thirty days of receipt, and he fully satisfied the Labour Court that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance since no notice was ever served on him.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

What this Court held to be implicit in rule 22 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules in Grindlays Bank is made explicit and clear in the Bombay Rules in the form of sub-rule (2) of rule 26; and Grindlays Bank did not say that industrial courts would have no jurisdiction to entertain an application for setting aside an award made after 30 days of its publication — in Grindlays Bank the recall application was filed within 30 days of publication, so the Section 17-A objection did not arise there.

¶17

Key takeaways

In light of Anil Sood ((2001) 10 SCC 534, relied on), where sufficient cause is shown which prevented a party from appearing and the party is visited with an award without notice — which is a nullity — the Labour Court/Tribunal must have power to set aside the ex-parte award; accordingly the appellant's submission based on Section 17-A of the Act has no substance, and there is no question of any conflict between Rule 26(2) of the Maharashtra (Bombay) Rules and Section 17-A of the Act.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Supreme Court of India (Tarun Chatterjee and Aftab Alam, JJ.; judgment delivered by Aftab Alam, J.), Civil Appeal No. 6737 of 2008, decided 21 November 2008: Radhakrishna Mani Tripathi (workman/appellant) v. L. H. Patel & Anr. The Second Labour Court, Thane gave an ex-parte award on 12 June 1998 (published 5 August 1998) in Reference (IDA) No. 224 of 1994 directing the appellant's reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service. Respondent no.1, who was never served notice and learnt of the award only on 27 January 1999, filed Misc. Application (IDA) No. 2 of 1999 on 29 January 1999 seeking recall; by order dated 12 July 2005 the Labour Court found the appellant had suppressed respondent no.1's correct address, recalled the award and fixed the matter for fresh hearing. The Bombay High Court (Writ Petition No. 7985 of 2005, order dated 25 January 2006) dismissed the appellant's challenge. HELD: (1) The recall was completely in accordance with Rule 26(2), Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957 — the application was made within thirty days of receipt of the award copy with sufficient cause (total non-service of notice). (2) What Grindlays Bank ((1980) Supp SCC 240) held implicit in rule 22 of the Central Rules is made explicit in sub-rule (2) of rule 26 of the Bombay Rules; Grindlays Bank did not hold that industrial courts lack jurisdiction to entertain setting-aside applications made after 30 days of publication. (3) Relying on Anil Sood ((2001) 10 SCC 534), where sufficient cause is shown and a party is visited with an award without notice — a nullity — the Labour Court/Tribunal must have power to set aside the ex-parte award; hence Rule 26(2) is not in conflict with s.17-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the functus officio argument fails. Appeal dismissed; no costs (appellant a workman).

[2008] 16 S,C.R. 490

~· ~

r- "

RADHAKRISHNAMANI TRIPATHI

¶6

¶7

L. H. PATEL & AN~.

¶8

··(Civil Appeal No. 6737 of. 2008)

¶9

¶10

NOVEMBER 21, 2008

¶11

[TARUN C,HATTERJEE AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.]

¶12

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES (BOMBAY) RULES, 1957:

¶13

c r. 26(2) -·Setting aside of ah ·ex-parte award - Labour Court set aside the award after 30 days of its publicationHELDi If there is sufficient cause shown which prevented a party from appeari~g and the party is visited with an award without notice which is a nullity, the Labour Court/Tribunal must D^{_have power toset aside-the_ex-parte}^award-^{Rule 26(2). is} not in conflict with s.17-A of the Act- In the instant case, the application for recalling ex-parte award was completely in accordance with r. 26(2) and the Labour Court rightly allowed the same""" Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - s.17A.

¶14

¶15

An ex-parte award under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was made on 12.6.1998 by the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the appellant. It was published on 5.8.1998. On 29.1.1999 respondent No.1 applied before F^{the Labour Court for recallof the award stating that no} notice was served on him; that he was not aware of the proceedings before the Labour Court and he came to know about it on 27 .1.1999 on receiving a copy of the award sent to him by the Labour Court. The application G^{was allowed. Thewritpetition filed by theappellant} challenging the recall of the award was dismissed by the High Court.

¶16

't-·-

¶17

¶18

In the instant appeal it was contended for the appellant that on expiry of 30 days from the publication .H ' 490

¶19

RADHAKRISHNA MANI TRIPATHI v. L H. PATEL & ANR. 491

-' """

,. -..,-

of the award the Labour Court became functus officio, and entertaining of any application for recall thereafter would be beyond its authority. It was submitted that s.26(2) of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules providing for an application to be made for recall of an ex-parte award made under r.26(1) was in derogation of s.17-A of the Act, in so far as it extended the time for recall of the award after the Labour Court ceased to have any control or authority over the matter.

¶25

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

¶26

HELD: 1.1. It is undeniable that the order of the Labour Court recalling the ex-parte award was completely in accordance with Rule 26(2) of the Industrial .Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957. The petition for recall was filed by respondent no.1 within two days of the receipt of a copy of the award and he was also able to fully satisfy the Labour Court that there was sufficient cause for his non appearance since no notice was ever served on him. [Para· 7] [495-G-H; 496-A]

¶27

1.2. This Court in Grindlays Bank* fou'nded the industrial Court's jurisdiction and power to recall an exparte award on rr. 22 and 24(b) of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules and what this Court held to be implicit in r.22 of the Central Rules is made explicit and clear in the Bombay Rules in the form of sub rule (2) of r.26 of the Rules. In Grindlays Bank this Court didn't say that the industrial courts would have no jurisdiction to entertain an application for setting aside an award made after 30 days of its publication. [Paras 14, 15 and 17] [498-C".D; 499-E-F]

-F

-4

*Grindlays Bank vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal & Ors., (1980) $upp SCC 240, referred to.

¶37

1.3. In Anil Sood's** case this ~ourt has held; if there H

¶38

492

¶39

SUPREME COURT -REPORTS

¶40

[2008] 16 S.C.R.

¶41

A is sufficient cause .shown which prevented a party from appearing, then .if the party is visited with an award without a notice which is a nullity, the Labour Court/ Tribunal r:nust have power to set aside the ex-parte award. In this view of the matter there is no question of any B conflict between Rule 26(2) of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) ·Rules and Section 17 -A of the Act. [Paras 18 and 19] [500-E-F; 501-A-B] .

¶42

~*Anil Sood vs, Presiding Officer Labour Court II, (2001) c 10 sec 534, relied on.

¶43

Case Law Reference:

¶44

(1980) Supp SCC 240 referred to Para 8 D (2001) 10 sec 534 relied on Para 18

¶45

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. · 6737 of 2008.

¶46

¶47

From the Judgment and final Order dated 25.1.2006 of the · E High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 7985 of 2005.

¶48

. .. RachnaJoshi lssar for the Appellant.

¶49

F Shyam Diwan, Jatin Zaveri and Manoj Gujar for the Respondents.

¶50

...,- ""

¶51

The Judgment of .the Court was delivered by

¶52

AFTAB ALAM, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties ..

¶53

¶54

Leave granted.

¶55

¶56

In an industrial dispute concerning the-termination of service of the appellant (the workman) the Second Labour H Court, Thane, Maharashtra gave an ex-parte award in

RADHAKRISHNA MANI TRIPATHI v. L. H. PATEL & ANR. 493 [AFTAB ALAM, J.)

¶61

" --;.

¶62

Reference (IDA) no.224 of 1994 in favour of the appellant on A 12 June 1998 directing his reinstatement with full back wages and continuity in service. The award was made after taking evidence (ex-parte} led on behalf of the appellant. It was published on 5 August 1998. On 29 January 1999 respondent· no.1 filed a petition (Misc. Application [IBA] no.2 of 1999) 1 B before the Labour Court making a prayer for recall of the award. , It was stated on behalf of the respondent that no notice was served on him and he was not aware of the proceedings before the Labour Court. He came to know about the matter only on ' 27 January 1999 on receiving a copy of the award sent to him · c by the court. And then without any loss of time he filed the petition for recall of the award. After a full dressed hearing on the recall petition the Tribunal found and held, vide order dated 12 July 2005, that the appellant obtained the order for ex-parte hearing of the reference by knowingly suppressing the correct D address of respondent no.1 and as a result the notice issued by the Labour Court was never served on him. In light of the finding, the Labour Court recalled its earlier award dated 12 June 1998 and fixed the matter for fresh hearing.

¶63

¶64

¶65

The appellant challenged the order of Labour Court setting aside the award before the Bombay High Court in Writ petition no. 7985 of 2005. The High Court, by its judgment and order dated 25 January 2006 dismissed the writ petition and confirmed the order passed by the Labour Court. This appeal is preferred against the orders passed by the High ·court and the Labour Court.

¶66

¶67

At this stage it will be useful to take note of certain provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the Rules framed there-under. r ; Section 11 of the Act permits the Industrial Tribunal, the Labour Court (and the other authorities under the Act) to follow, 'subject to any rules that may be made in this regard' such procedure as they may think fit. Section 38 of the Act gives the power to

¶68

¶69

¶70

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2008) 16 S.C.R

·494

x^~ """'

A the 'appropriate government' to make rules for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Act. Under Section 38 of the Act the Central Government and many State Governments have framed rules. Tt1e case in hand coming from Maharashtra is gove·rned by .the provisions of the Industrial Disputes B (Bombay) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Rules). Rule-26 of the Bombay Rules lays down the circumstances in which an industrial court may proceed ex parte as also the conditions on which it may set aside an ex parte award., It reads as follows:

¶76

¶77

'· ., '

¶78

¶79

"26. Board Court, Labour Court, Tribunal or Arbitrator may proceed .ex-parte :

¶80

(1) If without sufficient cause being shown, any party to a proceeding before a Board, Court, Labour Court, Tribunal D or an Arbitrator fails to attend or to. be represented the Board, Court, Labour Court, Tribunal or Arbitrat~r may proceed x-pae

¶81

(2) Where any award, order or decisions made ex-parte E u_nder sub-rule(1 }, the aggrieved party, may within thirty days of the receipt of a copy thereof, make an application to the Board, Court, Labour Court, Tribunal or an Arbitrator, as the case may be, to set aside such award, order or · decision. If the Board, Court, Labour Court, Tribunal or F Arbitrator is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for nonappearance of the aggrieved party, it or he may set aside the award, order or decisions so made and shall appoint a date for proceeding with the matter:

¶82

. · Provided that, n·o award, order or decision shall be -^{. 'set' asideon 'any'applictionas' aforesaidun'iessnoice} - thereof has been served' on the opposite party]. (n) . . . ' . ~~

¶83

¶84

[It may be stated here that originally rule 26 was limited to what now comprises sub-rule 1; sub-rule 2 was added by govt.

'(' -.

-+-~

RADHAKRISHNA MANI TRIPATHI v. L. H. PATEL & ANR. 495 [AFTAB ALAM, J.]

¶91

-.. _.. --;

¶92

notification dated 20 August 1970 and the original and the added provisions were numbered as sub-rules 1 and 2 respectively.]

¶93

¶94

Rule 31A of the Bombay Rules provides as follows:

¶95

¶96

"Publication of report or award etc. - (1) Within thirty days^B of the date of receipt of the report of a Board or award of a Labour Court or Tribunal by it the State Government, -

¶97

(a) shall, if it considers that having regard to the importance of such report or award its publication^c in the Official Gazette is necessary cause it to be published in the Official Gazette;

_,,. y

....)..

(b) If it considers that the report or award is not sufficiently important it may cause a copy thereof D together with a notification under section 17 to be forwarded to the Board or a Court or Tribunal, as the case may be, for publication on the Notice Board at its office.

¶102

(2) Where the report or award is published in the Official Gazette or on notice board of the Board, Court or Tribunal, the State·Government shall at the time of such publication forward a copy thereof to the parties to the dispute, and where the report or award is published on notice board of the Board, Court or Tribunal, such board, Court or Tribunal, shall inform the State Government and the parties . concerned of the date of such publication on the notice board."

¶103

¶104

¶105

It is undeniable that the order of the Labour Court recalling the ex-parte award was completely in accord with Rule 26(2) of the Bombay Rules. The petition for recall was filed by respondent no.1 within two days of the receipt of a copy of the award and he was also able to fully satisfy the Labour Cqurt

¶106

¶107

496

¶108

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

·{2008] 16 S.C.R.

X- .,,,,,.._

•,

A that there was sufficient cause for his non appearance since no notice was ever served on him.

¶114

However, Mrs. lssar, learned counsel appearing for the appellanttried to question the validity of rule 26(2) itself. She B^{submittedthatunderSection17-Aof theActanaward} becomes enforceable on expiry of thirty 'days from the date of its publication whereupon the labourcourt is rendered functus officio. Hence, any application for recall could only. be made within thirty days from the date of public;atic;m ,of the award, otherWise it would not be open to the Labour Co'Urt to entertain c it, as the matter would have gone completely beyond its authority. In support of the submission she relied upon certain observations in the decision in Grindlays Bank vs. Central Government Industrial Tribu(1al & Ors., 1980 (Supp) SCC 240. D^{She further submitted that the provisionof rule 26(2)of the} · Bombay Rules was in derogation of Section 17 -:-A of the Act in so far as it extended th~ time for making. an application for recall of the award and stretched it t9 a p9~nt w,here the Labour Court ceased to have any control er authority ver the matter. E^{Learned counsel submitted that rule 26(2) of the Bombay Rules} was in conflict with Section 17-A of. the Act and tended to supplement it. The provision of the rule must, therefoe. be held to be invalid and inoperative. In support of the su.bmission she relied upon a number of decisionswhich it is not-necessary to mention here. . .

¶115

¶116

' ..

¶117

' We are unable to accept the submissio'ns made on ' I I behalf of the appellant and we think any reliance placed on the decision in Grindlays Bank i~ quite misplaced. In Grindlays Bank an order passed by the Labour Court, recalling its'award, G was assailed on the same lines as adyocated ,by: Mrs. lssar before us. In view·of f the submissions made before it in . • - • • • ~ that case the Court framed the second _qlJ~stion. arising for its consideration as follows:

¶118

' "Whether the Tribunal becomes functus officio ori the

y ....

RADHAKRl,SHNA MANI TRIPATHI v. L. H. PATEL & ANR.⁴⁹⁷ [AFTAB ALAM, J.]

¶131

expiry of 30 .days from the date of publication of the expa rte award under Section 17, by reason of sub-section (3) of Sec. 20 and, therefore, had no jurisdiction to set aside the award and the Central· Government alone had ·the.power under sub (1) of Sec.17-A to set it aside."

¶132

¶133

1 o.. Here. it needs to be noted that the case of Grind lays Bank arose under.the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules. In the Central Rules there is nothing like rule 26(2) of the Maharashtra Rules; but rule 22 is almost. identical to rule 26(1) of the Maharashtra Rules. Rule 22 of the Central rules reads as follows:

¶134

¶135

"22. If without sufficient cause being shown, any party to proceedings before a Board, Court, Labour Court, Tribunal, National Tribunal or Arbitrator fails to attend or to be p

¶136

: represented, the Board, Court, Labour Court, Tribunal,

¶137

, . National Tribunal or Arbitrator may proceed, as if the party · ·had duly attended or had been represented."

¶138

Further, rule 24 of the Central Rules gives to the Industrial Tribunal, Labour Court (and the other authorities under the Act) ·certain powers under the Civil Procedure Code as vested in a Civil Court when trying a suit. The powers enumerated under the rule include the power of granting adjournments.

¶139

,..),._

¶140

In Grind/ays Bank this Court held that rules 22 and 24 (b) were sufficiently the source of power for the industrial courts to recall an,ex-parte award. It was pointed out that in terms of rule 22 the industrial courts could proceed ex parte in the matter only in case a party to the proceeding failed to attend or be represented without showing sufficient cause. The Court held that power to proceed ex-parte under rule 22 carried with it the power to inquire whether or not there was sufficient cause for the absence of the party at the hearing and in case the party was able to show sufficient cause for its non appearance on

¶141

¶142

¶143

·SUPREME COURT REPORTS

498

[2008] 16 S.C.R.

A the date the court had proceeded ex parte against it, to recall the award. (vlde paragraph 11 of the decision).

¶149

/"· , ' , • .~· ' I 1

¶150

· · 13. Similarly;the·Court·pointed out, the provision of rule 24(b) empowered the industrial pourts to refuse to adjourn the 8 hearing and to proceed ex-parte. Hence, in a case in which the industrial court makes an' ex-parte award the provisions of Order 9 Rule 13 of c·pc would be clearly attracted. It logically follows that tile Tribunal is competent to e~rtain an application to set aside an ex parte award. (vide paragraph 12 of the C decision)

¶151

The Court thus founded the industrial court's jurisdictior1··- · and power to· recall an ex~parte award on rule 22 and 24 (b)of Central Rules. ·· ·

¶152

D 15. It is thus to be seen that in Grindlays Bank what this Court held to.be implicit in rule 22 of the Central Rules is made explicit and clear in the Bombay Rules in the. form of sub rule (2) of rule 26.

¶153

·•

¶154

E 16. Coming now to the submission based on Sec.17-A of the Act the Court in paragraph 14 of the decision held and observed as follows:

'·

"The contention that the Tribunal had become func'tus officio and, therefore, had no jurisdiction to set·aside the ex-p-arte award and that the Central Government alone ·;1 ,could set it aside, does not commend to .us. Sub-section. ,, (3) of Section ~O .of the. Act provides that. the proceedings ·· ~-before the Tribunal would be deemed to continue till the date on which the award becomes enforceable under Section . Under Section· of the Act, an award becomes enforceable on the expiry of 30 days from the date of its publication· under Section 17. The proceedings with. regard to a reference under Section 1 O of the Act are, therefore, not deemed to be concluded· until the expiry

RADHAKRISHNA MANI TRIPATHI v. L. H. PATEL & ANR. 499 [AFTAB ALAM, J.]

¶164

of 30 days from the publication of the award. Till then the A Tribunal retains jurisdiction over the dispute referred to it for adjudication and up to that date it has the power to entertain an application in connection with such dispute; That stage is not reached till the award becomes enforceable under Section . In the instant case, the tribunal B made the ex-parte award on December 9, 1976. That award was published by the Central Government in the Gazette of India dated December 25, 1976. The application for setting aside the ex-parte award was filed by respondent 3, acting on behalf of respondents 5 to 17 c on January· 19, 1977 i.e., before the expiry of 30 days of its publication and was, therefore, rightly entertained by the Tribunal. It had jurisdiction to entertain it and decide it on merits."

¶165

(emphasis added)

¶166

From the above quotation it would appear that in Grindlays Bank the recall application was filed within 30 days from the date of publication of the award and hence, the objection raised on the basis of Sec.17 A did not arise in this case. In Grindlays Bank this Court didn't say that the industrial courts would have no jurisdiction to entertain an application for setting aside an award made after 30 days of its publication. Nevertheless, on the basis of the passage marked in italics in the above quotation Mrs. lssar strongly contended that is the true import of the judgment.

¶167

F '

¶168

· 18. We are unable to accept. The position is made clear in the later decision in Anil Sood vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court· II, (2001) 10 SCC 534. In Anil Sood interestingly the Labour Court had rejected the recall application on the very same ground that after making the award it became functus officio in the matter. The order of the Labour Court was challenged before the High Court but the High Court also took

H ,

500

SUPREME COURT REPQRTS

[2008J 16 S.C.R.

:,..- :;:,

A the same view. In appeal this Court noted that the award was made on 1' 1 .09 .1995 and the application for its recall was filed on 6.11.95. The Court referred to. the earlier decision in Grindlays .Barik and the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 11.of the Act and in paragraphs 6, 7, a.nd 8 of the B decision observed and held as follows:

¶180

¶181

"6. The aspect that.the party against whom award· is to be made due opportunity to defend has to be given is a matter . of procedure and not that of power in the sense in which the language is adopted in Section 11. When matters are : referred to the tribunal or court they have to be decided objectively and the tribunals/courts have to exercise their discretion in a judicial manner without arbitrariness by following the general principles of law and rules of natural justice.

¶182

"7. The power to proceed ex-parte is avilable under Rule 22 of the Central Rules which also includes the power to inquire wh.ether or not there was sufficient cause for the absence ofa party at the hearing, and if there is sufficient cause shown which prevented a party from appearing, then if the party is visited with an award without a notice which .is a nullity and therefore the Tribunal will have· no jurisdiction to proceed and consequently, it must necessarily have pwer to set aside the ex-parte award.

¶183

"8. If this be the position in law, both the High Court and the Tribunal (sic Labour Court) Jell into an error in stating that the Labour Court had become functus officio after making the award though ex-parte. We set aside the order made and the award passed· by the Labour Cou~ and .. affirmed by the High Court in this regard, in v1ew of the fact that the learned counsel for the respondent conceded that application filed by the appellant be allowed, set aside the ex-parte award and restore the reference."

¶184

¶185

RADHAKRISHNA MANI TRIPATHI v. L. H. PATEL & ANR. 501 [AFTAB ALAM, J.]

' -1

In light of the decision in Anil Sood we find no A substance in the appellant's submission based on Section 17A of the Act. There being no substance in the first limb of the submission there is no question of .any conflict between rule 26(2) of the Maharashtra Rules and Section 17-A of the Act.

¶190

¶191

¶192

We find no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.· Having regard to the fact that.the appellant is a workman we refrain from imposing any cost

¶193

R.P.

¶194

Appeal dismissed. c

Radhakrishna Mani Tripathi v. L. H. Patel & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhakrishna Mani Tripathi v. L. H. Patel & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ishwaragouda & Ors. versus Mallikarjun Gowda & Ors. .

Div. Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. versus a. Sankaralingam

M/S Klm Royal Dutch Airlines versus Director General of Investigation & Registration

Mangal Singh & Anr. versus Kishan Singh & Ors.

Narayan Prasad Lohia versus Nikunj Kumar Lohia

Board of Trustees for Port of Calcutta & Ors. versus Avijit Kumar Ray & Ors.