Bijli Kaamgar Union And ANR. v. The Honble Lt.Governor And ORS.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ...
WPA/116/2020 Bijli Kaamgar Union and another ... Petitioners Vs.
The Lieutenant Governor and others ... Respondents Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar, Advocate ... for the petitioners Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, Advocate ... for the respondents December 9, 2021 [GNC] Item No. 24 The petitioners seek a direction upon the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to act in terms of the statutory settlement dated October 26, 2017 arrived at between the parties.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners went with various grievances for settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. A settlement was arrived at on October 26, 2017. Such settlement postulates payment to the members of the petitioner No.1 who were paid less. It also postulates reinstatement of 74 daily rated mazdoors (DRMs)/Mandays workers who have completed 240 days. He submits that the settlement being statutory in nature is enforceable and that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 are bound by the same. Subsequent thereto the petitioners approached the Central Administrative Tribunal on various occasions and made representations to the authorities pursuant to the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. These actions of the petitioners do not dilute the obligation of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to act in terms of the statutory settlement dated October 26, 2017. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 failed to discharge their
obligations in terms of the statutory settlement dated October 26, 2017. He submits that 74 of the DRMs/Mandays workers are yet to be reinstated and that all of them have completed 240 days of service.
Learned advocate appearing for the respondents draws attention of the Court to the conduct of the petitioners subsequent to the settlement dated October 26, 2017. He submits that there are two orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated January 25, 2018 and June 6, 2019 governing the issues. The respondents are not responsible for the so called infractions. The workload of the respondents are not such so as to reinstate any of the 74 DRMs/Mandays workers. He refers to the disposal of the representation dated November 15, 2019. The grievance of the petitioners were initially addressed under the ambit of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by a settlement being arrived at in writing on October 26, 2017. Relevant portion of the settlement is as follows:- "In view of the above, the Conciliation Officer of the opinion that less payment if any shall be verified & settle immediately and retrenched DRMs/Mandays workers who were completed 240 days shall be reinstate immediately for amicable settlement of the dispute."
The petitioners approached the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA/351/1673/AN/2017 in which order dated January 25, 2018 was passed. By such order, the petitioners were permitted to file a comprehensive representation to the authorities highlighting their grievances within a period of 15 days. The competent authority was directed to consider and
dispose of the representation of the petitioners if so filed by passing a reasoned and speaking order. The petitioners also approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by way of OA/351/97/2018 in which an order dated June 7, 2019 was passed. By such order the competent authority was directed to consider the grievances of the petitioners as highlighted in their representation in accordance with the decision arrived at on October 26, 2017 and take necessary steps for reinstatement. The authorities disposed of the representation of the petitioners by an order dated November 15, 2019. By such order, the authorities claim that the short payment in respect of the members of the first petitioner were addressed and that since the workload is not such so as to reinstate the 74 DRMs/Mandays workers, they cannot be done so.
The impugned order does not provide any details with regard to the workload and as to whether the authorities engaged any DRMs/Mandays subsequent to the settlement dated October 26, 2017. In absence of such details, the impugned order cannot be said to be a speaking order. The impugned order seeks to negate the right of 74 DRMs/Mandays workers to be reinstated once they completed 240 days which got crystallized by the settlement dated October 26, 2017.
Consequently, the order dated November 15, 2019 of the authorities to the extent of rejecting the claim for reinstatement of the 74 DRMs/Mandays workers is set aside.
The authorities are directed to consider the representation of the petitioners for reinstatement of the 74 DRMs/Mandays workers afresh. The authorities will afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The authorities will pass a reasoned order giving details of DRMs/Mandays workers, if any, being appointed subsequent to the settlement dated October 26, 2017 and giving details of the completion of 240 days in respect of the 74 DRMs/Mandays workers involved. The authorities will also specify the reasons if there be any for nonappointment of any DRMs/Mandays workers who completed 240 days subsequent to the settlement dated October 26, 2017. It is expected the authorities will complete the entire exercise within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. With the aforesaid directions, WPA/116/2020 is disposed of.
(Debangsu Basak, J.)