High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 2218/2006 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned senior counsel and Mr. S.K. Kejriwal, learned coun sel for the petitioner and Mr. J. Handique, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam appear ing for respondent No. 1. Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel has appeared for r espondent No. 10, i.e., Assam Chah Karmachari Sangha representing the workmen. On allegation of indisciplined behavior in the tea estate of the petitioner, res pondent Nos. 3 to 9 were show caused by the management to which they submitted reply. Though conciliation proceedings were initiated, the same ended in failure . In the meanwhile, management informed respondent Nos. 3 to 9 (workmen) that th ey intended to hold enquiry into the charges framed against them. Accordingly, e nquiry was held and as per report of the Enquiry Officer, charges framed against the workmen were held to be proved. After issuing further notice to the workmen , they were dismissed from service by order dated 10.02.2006. Notification dated 17.02.2006 was issued by the Govt. of Assam in the Labour and Employment Department referring the following dispute to the Labour Court, Guwa hati for adjudication :- (cid:28)Whether the coercive action of the management of Tinkharia Tea Estate, P.O. Dhe kiajuli Dist:- Sonitpur (Assam) initiated against their 7 (seven) Nos. of workme n Viz. Shri Manik Sarma and six others by declaring them ’unfit to be continued in the Employment’ on the ground of their concerted activities as members of a recognized trade union demanding statutory and fringe benefits denied to them, i n contravention of agreement reached to that effect in good faith, amounts to un fair Labour Practice under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (ii) If so, what relief the workmen concerned are entitled to? (cid:29) On the basis of the aforesaid, Reference Case No. 1/2006 was registered by the L abour Court, Assam, Guwahati. This was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in WP(C) No. 2218/2006. It was contended that the terms of reference did not reflect the real dispute be tween the parties. Further contention was that appropriate Government had alread y pre-judged the issue by declaring the action of the management as coercive in nature. This Court by order dated 29.05.2006 stayed further proceedings in the said refe rence, which as noticed above, had in the meanwhile been registered as Reference Case No. 01/2006. Whether the management order dtd. 10.02.2006 signed by a non-disciplinar While the matter rested at that, Govt. of Assam in the Labour and Employment Dep artment again issued notification dated 08.05.2007 making a reference under Sect ion 10(1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Labour Court, Assam, G uwahati for adjudication of the following dispute:- (cid:28)1. y authority dismissing Shri Manik Sarma, Shri Pratijyoti Dan Roy, Shri Sankar Ma jumder, Shri Nitish Kar, Shri Debabrata Dey, Shri Arindam Dasgupta and Shri Sust hir Choudhury respectively from services was valid and justified? 2. If not, whether the said workmen are entitled to reinstatement in servic es with full back wages or any other relief in lieu thereof? (cid:29) The said reference was registered as Reference Case No. 09/2007 and by the ex-pa rte judgment and award dated 13.11.2009, learned Labour Court answered the refer ence by holding the dismissal order of the workmen as illegal and void and direc ted their reinstatement with full back wages. Dismissal order dated 10.02.2006 w as set aside. Aggrieved, petitioner has filed WP(C) No. 2394/2010. When the matter is taken up for hearing, Mr. Kejriwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of Reference Case No. 09/20 07, there was a change in the management of the tea estate, the related document s of which have been placed on record. Since the old management decided to own u p the previous liabilities of the tea estate, they negotiated a settlement with the workmen. As respondent Nos. 3 and 6 would have attained the age of superannu ation on 29.10.2007 and 02.02.2007 respectively, no settlement was arrived at wi th the said two respondents. Regarding respondent Nos. 4 and 5, they were paid f inal compensation amount without any reinstatement, which they accepted. In so f ar respondent Nos. 7, 8 and 9 were concerned, on acceptance of their termination , the said workmen were reinstated in service but without any back wages. Moreov er, because of change in management, neither the old management nor the new mana gement pursued the reference because of which the matter proceeded ex-parte. It appears that learned Labour Court while deciding Reference Case No. 09/2007 w as not aware of the aforesaid development. Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 10 fairly s ubmits that since respondent Nos. 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 have got substantial relief, they would not like to contest the present proceeding and, therefore, they would accept the version of the management. He, however, submits that in so far respo ndent Nos. 3 and 6 are concerned, since the periods from the date of dismissal i .e., 10.02.2006 to their dates of scheduled superannuation i.e., 29.10.2007 and 02.02.2007 respectively are very limited, they should be provided the benefit of back wages as they have suffered a lot. Mr. Sarmah and Mr. Kejriwal, while seriously disputing the above submission of M r. Chakraborty regarding payment of back wages to respondent Nos. 3 and 6, howev er, fairly submits that in view of the negotiated settlement arrived at with the other workmen, management would pay the admissible retiral dues of the said two respondents. Even if dismissal is set aside, payment of back wages on reinstate ment is no longer automatic. Having regard to the above and considering the settlement arrived at between the management and the aggrieved workmen and the fact that respondent Nos. 3 and 6 would have superannuated in the meanwhile in due course, I am of the view that i t would meet the ends of justice if the petitioner pays the retiral dues of resp ondent Nos. 3 and 6. Regarding claim for back wages, admittedly, the said respon dents had not worked during the period of subsistence of the industrial dispute. Therefore, I am not inclined to direct payment of back wages. However, they sho uld be paid their retirement dues by treating them to be in service till their s cheduled dates of superannuation. Since the appropriate Government had issued the subsequent notification dated 08 .05.2007 encompassing the entire gamut of the industrial dispute between the par ties, I am of the view that the earlier notification dated 17.02.2006 would not survive for consideration. Consequently, Reference Case No. 01/2006 would also n ot survive for consideration. The same is accordingly quashed. In view of above, impugned judgment and award dated 13.11.2009 passed in Referen ce Case No.09/2007 is hereby set aside and quashed, subject to the direction tha t the management shall pay the retiral dues of respondent No. 3 and 6 as indicat ed above within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Decision
WP(C) Nos. 2218/2006 and 2394/2010 are disposed of.