Andaman Sarvajanik Nirman Vibag Mazdoor Sangh v. The Lieutenant Governor And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] PRESENT: THE HON'BLE JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK WPA/65/2023 ANDAMAN SARVAJANIK NIRMAN VIBAGH MAZDOOR SANGH AND ANOTHER ... PETITIONERS VS.

THE HON'BLE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR AND OTHERS ... RESPONDENTS For the petitioners : Mr.Gopala Binnu Kumar For the respondents : Mr.Shatadru Chakraborty Mr.Dibesh Dwivedi Heard on : April 04, 2024 Judgment on : April 04, 2024 DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

(Per Court) 1.

Petitioners assail an order of rejection dated August 09, 2019 rejecting their claim for bonus.

2.

The learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner submits that, writ petitioners are daily rated mazdoors. Their claim for bonus was admitted before the National Lok Adalat by the authorities on April 09,

2016. Despite such admission, no payment was made with regard to bonus.

3.

The writ petitioners filed a writ petition being WP No.272 of 2018 for implementing the settlement arising out of the National Lok Adalat order dated April 09, 2016, which was disposed of by an order dated December 10, 2018 directing payment.

4.

Despite such order, no payment was made. A contempt petition was filed in which a Rule was issued on February 06, 2020. Thereafter, during the pendency of the contempt petition, the authorities passed the impugned order dated August 09, 2019. The contempt petition was ultimately disposed of on December 14, 2022 after observing that the authorities took a decision. Thereafter, the writ petitioners filed the present writ petition.

5.

Learned advocate appearing for the Administration submits that, the claim of the writ petitioners is barred by limitation. The order of the rejection impugned is August 09, 2019 with the same being challenged in this writ petition filed in 2023. He relies upon the judgment reported at (2007) 9 Supreme Court Cases 274 ( Shiv Das vs. Union of India and others) and submits that, delay and laches disentitles a writ petitioner from appropriate relief. Moreover, the claim, if allowed, should be limited for a period of three years from the date of filing of the writ petition.

6.

That apart, he submits that, a settlement arrived at before the National Lok Adalat was, with regard to the eligible Daily Rated Mazdoors (DRMs). None of the petitioners before the Court are Daily Rated Mazdoors eligible to receive bonus. He submits that, none of the employment of the petitioners were regularized. Therefore, none of the petitioners are entitled to non-productivity linked bonus which is granted to a regular employee.

7.

The writ petition is pending since 2023. Directions for affidavits were given. Time to file affidavit-in-opposition was extended peremptorily on November 22, 2023. The Administration did not file any affidavit to the writ petition.

8.

There is a settlement order passed by the National Lok Adalat on April 09, 2016 where the authorities admitted that all eligible candidates of the DRMs are entitled to get bonus and that the authorities did not object to making payment of bonus to eligible DRMs. 9.

Before the National Lok Adalat, the issue as to bonus being payable to the DRMs was decided in the manner as noted in the order dated April 09, 2016. Such issue was decided in favour of the petitioners. 10.

The authorities agreed and recorded their no objection to payment of bonus to eligible DRMs. The authorities, therefore, are precluded from resiling from the settlement dated April 9, 2016 arrived at before the National Lok Adalat. Authorities did not pay the bonus to the petitioners

as DRMs. The petitioners approached the writ court by way of a writ petition being WP/272/2018, which was disposed of by an order dated December 10, 2018 requiring the authorities to pay bonus in terms of the settlement dated April 09, 2016. No appeal was carried against such order of the writ court.

11.

The Authorities not paying the bonus, a contempt petition was filed in which a Rule was issued on February 06, 2020. During the pendency of the Rule, the authorities passed an order dated August 09, 2019 rejecting the claim of the bonus of the writ petitioners on the ground that the writ petitioners are not eligible for non-productivity linked bonus in view of the writ petitioners not being regularized from the post of DRMs. 12.

The contempt petition was subsequently disposed of on December 14, 2022 after noting that the authorities passed the order of rejection dated August 09, 2019.

13.

The issue of delay and laches as raised by the respondents requires consideration. Shiv Das (supra) is of the view, if, there is negligence or omission on the part of the writ petitioners in filing the writ petition, which in the facts and circumstances causes prejudice to the opposite parties, the High Court may refuse to entertain the writ petition.

14.

In the facts of the present case, the petitioners were diligently pursuing their claim before the appropriate forum. Initially, before the

National Lok Adalat, a settlement was arrived at. Such settlement not being adhered to by the authorities, a writ petition was filed. The writ petition was disposed of by directing the authorities to pay bonus in terms of the settlement arrived at before the National Lok Adalat. Authorities not complying with such direction, a contempt petition was filed. Significantly, the order dated December 10, 2018 passed in WP/272/2018 directed the authorities to pay the bonus to the eligible DRMs without any further delay, but positively within a period of three months from the date of the order. The order was not assailed in appeal by the authorities. In the contempt petition, a Rule was issued on February 06, 2020 and the contempt petition was disposed of on December 14, 2022. The writ petition was filed in 2023. 15.

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, I do not find that the petitioners are guilty of delay and laches so as to disentitle the petitioners from the reliefs as claimed for.

16.

The authorities cannot resile and should not be permitted to do so, from their stated position. Their stated position with regard to payment of bonus to DRMs and their eligibility to receive the same, appears from the settlement before the National Lok Adalat dated April 09, 2016. Such stated position also appears from the order dated December 10, 2018 passed in WP 272 of 2018.

17.

The impugned order dated August 9, 2019 seeks to reject the claim for bonus of the writ petitioners on the ground that the writ petitioners

are not regularized from the post of DRMs. With respect, such plea cannot be accepted. Authorities did not deny the claim of bonus to DRMs either before the National Lok Adalat on April 9, 2016 or before the High Court on December 18, 2018 on such ground.

18.

In such circumstances, the impugned office order 845 dated August 9, 2019 is set aside.

19.

Authorities are directed to pay the eligible DRMs bonus in terms of the settlement dated April 9, 2016 before the National Lok Adalat and the order of the High Court dated December 18, 2018 passed in WP 272 of 2018, within a period of four weeks from date. 20.

WPA/65/2023 is disposed of without any order as to costs. ( DEBANGSU BASAK, J. )