The General Manager, Aniidco Ltd. v. Y. John And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/267/2019 The General Manager, ANIIDCO Ltd.

Vs Y.John and Ors.

Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty ... for the petitioner Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar ... for the respondent August 1, 2024 [SR] Item No.27 This writ petition is directed against an award dated September 25, 2019 made by the Labour Court, Port Blair in ID Case No. 03 of 2015. The relevant facts are that the applicants before the Labour Court were initially engaged as Daily Rated Mazdoors (DRMs) by ANIIDCO. Subsequently they were given regular appointment. Thereafter they claimed the benefit of 1/30th of pay plus Dearness Allowance. There was litigation regarding such claim. The litigation, right up to Supreme Court, ended in favour of those workmen. The administration has also paid such claim.

The present dispute is regarding the claim of the said workmen for Seniority, Gratuity, Past Service and Equal Pay for Equal Work starting from the period of their initial engagement as DRMs. The matter ultimately went before the Labour Court. The Labour Court passed an order which is impugned in this writ petition by ANIIDCO. The operative portion of the order is as follows: "that the action on the General Manager of ANIIDCO (Andaman and Nicobar Islands Integrated Development Corporation Limited) Port Blair, a Government India's undertaking is not paying the past service benefits like Seniority, Gratuity, Pension Benefits of the First Party workmen from the date of initial appointment is neither legal nor justified.

Moreover the First Party's non payment of equal pay for equal work to the First Party workmen at par with the regular employee when the First Party workmen were working as daily wages/contract employee under the Second Party is also not justified. The First members are entitled to get both the reliefs from the Second Party.

Since there is no dispute about the names of the persons there in as well as their initial appointment and other

particulars furnished accompanying page 3 of the statement of affidavit of Arumugam (as ready reference regarding their particulars) forwarded to the Assistant Secretary (Labour) A&N Islands Administration since the dispute as referred to this Tribunal has been disposed of by his reference dated 3rd June 2015 vide Notification No. F3-516/2015- Labour." Learned advocate for the writ petitioner submits that there is no pension scheme under the pension rules in so far as ANIIDCO is concerned. Therefore no question of granting pension under the pension rules to the aforesaid workmen can or does arise. In any event, he submits that the order is not supported by reasons. Learned advocate for the workmen took me through the order of the Labour Court and submitted that it is a well considered order. The order requires no interference.

I have carefully considered the order. Several case laws have been discussed by the Labour Court. However, there appears to be no nexus of such discussion with the conclusion reached in the order in question. The operative portion of the order is not supported by cogent reasons. There is no discussion as to why the Labour Court was allowing the claim of the workmen on various counts. Without going into the merits of the matter and solely on the ground that the order impugned is bereft of adequate reasons, I set aside the order and remand the matter to the Labour Court for fresh adjudication. Since the matter has been pending for quite some time, I request the Labour Court to hear out and conclude the matter as early as possible and preferably within three months from the date of communication of this order by the parties to the Labour Court.

I clarify that I have not touched the merits of the case. The Labour Court shall decide the dispute in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observation in this order. (Arijit Banerjee J.)