Bokajan Cement Factory v. The Presiding Officer and 13 Ors

ORDER

14.12.2023

Heard Shri J. Roy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri B.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri A.K. Dasgupta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri J.K. Sharma, the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 14.

¶2The challenge in this writ petition is in respect of a an Award dated 31.12.2012 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal Guwahati in Ref. Case No. 03/2008. The aforesaid Award was on a reference made to the learned Tribunal. For better appreciation, the issues which were referred are extracted herein below:

¶1Whether the management of M/S Cement Corpn. of India, Bokajan, Karbi Page No.# 4/6 Anglong is justified to ask for undertaking only from the wage Board V.R.S. Employees at the time of payment of 50% or 100% ex-gratia benefit.

¶2Whether the said management is justified to deny the revised pay scale to the wage Board V.R.S. employees who were released from the service in the year 2002 though the pay revision came into effect from 01-04-2000.

3.Whether the management of M/S Cement Corpn. of India, Bokajan, Karbi Anglong is justified to deprive the V.R.S. employees from "NOTICE PAY" though they were released from the service on instant notice.

¶4Whether the said management is justified to deny the revised scale benefits to the wage Board V.R.S. Employees who had not submitted any kinds of undertaking before the management at the time of released from the service under V.R.S.

¶3The learned Tribunal vide the impugned Award had held the same in favour of the workmen.

¶4Shri Roy, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that amongst the four nos. of issues, Issue Nos. 2 & 4 would be relevant for the purpose of the case. The learned Senior Counsel fairly submits that though initially 50% ex-gratia was granted only for employees who had come under the Industrial Dearness Allowance and not for Wage Board employees, there was an administrative approval of the concerned Ministry whereby the Wage Board employees were also held to be entitled to such ex-gratia payment. Pursuant to the said decision, the issue of such payment arose for 110 numbers of employees who had opted for voluntary retirement during the period 14.12.2001 to 31.01.2002. However, at the same time, there was a pay revision of the year 1997 which came into effect from 01.04.2000. After such Page No.# 5/6 notification, there was a claim from the concerned workmen for giving them the benefit of pay revision.

¶5The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that since ex-gratia payment has already been decided to be paid to the concerned workmen, saddling the Management to make such payment by taking into consideration the revision of pay would amount to double payment. It is submitted that once the benefit of ex-gratia is given to the concerned workmen, the further question of giving the benefits of revision of pay will not arise. It is accordingly submitted that the impugned Award dated 31.12.2012 of the learned Industrial Tribunal be interfered with.

¶6Per contra, Shri Dasgupta, the learned Senior Counsel for the workman has defended the Award and has submitted that there are no grounds for interference by a writ court.

¶7The rival submissions made have been duly considered.

¶8An Award passed by a Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal is to be tested with circumspection as the same is done after appreciation of evidence and on the basis of the materials on record. Interference with such Award is however possible only when there is perversity or error apparent on the face of it. Only because of the fact that another view is possible to be taken should not be a ground of intervention with such Award.

¶8In the instant case, the ground of challenge is that saddling the Management to give the benefit of the revision of pay of the year 1997 to the concerned workmen would amount to double payment. This Court however is unable to accept the said submission inasmuch as payment of ex-gratia and revision of pay are entirely two Page No.# 6/6 different segments and are not overlapping. Though both the aspects are for the benefit of the workmen, those are under separate heads and will have no connection. This Court is of the view that giving the concerned workmen the ex-gratia by keeping into account the benefit of pay revision is very much within the scheme of the things and cannot be termed, in any manner as illegal or arbitrary.

¶9In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that no sustainable grounds have been able to be made out requiring any interference with the Award dated

31.12.2012 passed by the Learned Industrial Tribunal in Ref. Case No. 3 /2008 and accordingly this writ petition stands dismissed.

¶10Let the records be send back forthwith. JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/6 GAHC010257242013 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oWP(C)/6760/2013o BOKAJANoCEMENToFACTORYo AoUNIToOFoCEMENToCORPORATIONoOFoINDIAoLTD.,oBOKAJAN,oDIST.-o KARBIoANGLONG,oASSAM,oREP.oBYoMR.oS.K.oSINGH,oSR.oMANAGERo SECURITYoANDoHODoPoandoA,oBOKAJANoCEMENToFACTORY,oKARBIo ANGLONG VERSUSo THEoPRESIDINGoOFFICERoando13oORSo INDUSTRIALoTRIBUNAL,oGUWAHATI,oASSAM. 2:AMBESWARoCHETIA oS/O-oRARAYANoCHETIA oVILL.-oJYOTINAGAR oP.O.-oSUKHANJANoVIA-BOKAJAN oDIST.-oKARBIoANGLONG oASSAM. 3:MAHANANDAoPAUL oS/O-oU.C.oPAUL oVILL.-oDIPHUoCINEMAoHALL oP.O.-oDIPHU oDIST.-oKARBIoANGLONG oASSAM. 4:DHELARAMoBASUMATARY oS/O-oNORESWARoBASUMATARY oVILL.-oMANDULIJAN oP.O.-oHOWRAGHAT oDIST.-oKARBIoANGLONG oASSAM. Page No.# 2/6 5:PRAHLAD DEORI S/O- TILESWAR DUWARI VILL.- EKARATOLI P.O.- BHANO DIST.- SIVASAGAR ASSAM. 6:HEMANTA KUMAR DAS S/O- K.C. DAS VILL. and P.O.- DANGURI DIST.- DIBRUGARH. 7:DEBESH SAHA S/O- D.C. SAHA VILL. and P.O.- TIPKAI DIST.- GOALPARA ASSAM. 8:MAN SING BEY S/O- SARKEHAI BEY VILL.- BORMANTHI P.O.- BOKAJAN DIST.- KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM. 9:ANANTA KR. CHETIA PHUKAN S/O- M.R. CHETIAPHUKON VILL.- TITAPATHAR P.O.- BETNA DIST.- SIVASAGAR. 10:SUNIT CHETIA S/O- C.K. CHETIA VILL.- KAMBARI BALIJAN GRANT P.O.- AMGURI SHYAMGAON VIA-SONARI DIST.- SIVASAGAR ASSAM. 11:MIHIR KR. CHAKRABORTY S/O- PRASANNA CHAKRABORTY VILL. and P.O.- HANSARA DIST.- DIBRUGARH ASSAM. 12:DELIMAN TERANG S/O- DILIRAM TERANG Page No.# 3/6 VILL. and P.O.- KULIGAON DIST.- KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM. 13:LANGTUK HANSE S/O- SAR-ET HANSE VILL. and P.O.- KULIGAON DIST.- KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM. 14:DILESWAR BARUAH S/O- DONDESWAR BORUAH VILL.- NAHARTOLI P.O.- NIZ KHALOI GUGHURA DIST.- SIVASAGAR ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.J ROY Advocate for the Respondent : MR.A DASGUPTA BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI