The Deputy Conservator Of Forests v. Shri.P.Tata Rao And 46 ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** MAT/16/2025 (IA NO: CAN/1/2025, CAN/2/2025) The Deputy Conservator of Forests Vs.
Shri P. Tata Rao and 46 Others Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi ... for the petitioner Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar ... for the respondents March 11, 2025 [SR] Item No.8 1.
The appeal is arising out of an order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 8th November, 2024 in a writ petition challenging an award dated 07th September, 2018 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Port Blair.
2.
The respondents were working as Daily Rated Mazdoors (DRMs) under the Deputy Conservator of Forests (Wildlife), Port Blair. Admittedly, they were all engaged since 1986 and subsequently absorbed in the permanent service, the Deputy Conservator of Forests (Wildlife) as Group-D staff sometime in the year 1993.
3.
The dispute arose with regard to their claim fro, 1986 to 1993 regarding payment of wages and salaries equivalent @ 1/30th of the pay plus dearness allowances for day's work of eight hours in terms of DoPT OM No.49014/2/86-Estt(C) dated 07.06.1988.
4.
The said communication has been adopted, applied and implemented by the Andaman and Nicobar Administration. The
said industrial dispute was referred by the appropriate government for adjudication. The reference reads as follows: "Whether the demand of 47 Daily Rated Mazdoors (Annexure A) represented by the Secretary, A & N Wildlife Workers Union, Port Blair to the Deputy Conservator of Forests (Wildlife) for extending the pay benefit to them in accordance with the Govt. of India, Department of Personnel & Training OM No.49014/2/86-Estt(C) dated 07.06.1988 at the rate of 1/30th of the pay plus Dearness Allowance for day's work of eight hours at the minimum of the same nature of work is legal and entitled?" 5.
Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that although the learned Single Judge has accepted the submissions made on behalf of the appellants that the claim was belated but there is no serious challenge to the entitlement of the said amount under the DoPT having regard to the fact that the said DoPT was accepted and implemented in the Andaman and Nicobar Administration.
6.
It appears that the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration that the decision of Coordinate Bench in the case of the General Manager vs. R. Alangaram and others reported in 2023 0 Supreme (Cal) 608 in which the similar prayers were allowed although the employees made a claim after nearly 15 years for the same benefit. In the said decision, the Coordinate Bench found that the claim of a workman to arrears of wages is a continuous cause of action. 7.
Leaving aside all consideration, it cannot be doubted that the respondents have worked diligently and were entitled in law such arrears of wages consequent upon the acceptance and implementation of the DoPT by the Administration. 8.
It is a paramount duty of the Administration to ensure that the legitimate claims of the workers are not denied. The
Republic of India contemplates equality and no deprivation of the rights of the workers and poor sections merely because there is a delay.
9.
There are catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which has emphasized and reiterated that the state has to act as a model employer and shall not put a defense of limitation in order to frustrate the legitimate claim of the workman.
10.
In the instant case without any hesitation, we can say that having regard to the fact that the entitlement is not disputed as a necessary corollary, the state as a welfare measure ought to have extended the said benefits to its employees without requiring them to approach the Tribunal or Court of law.
11.
The learned Single Judge relied upon the aforesaid decision and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surinder Singh and another vs. Engineer-in-Chief, CPWD and another others reported in AIR 1986 SC 584 and also several other decisions have rightly observed that there cannot be a straightjacket formula to defeat a belated claim raised before the Industrial Tribunal in respect of any workmen's entitlement.
12.
The observation of the Coordinate Bench in paragraphs 33, 36 and 38 in R. Alangaram (supra) was relied upon. The said paragraphs, for convenience are reproduced below:- "33. To the mind of this Court, the above noted pronouncement of the Hon'ble Division Bench makes it amply clear that receipt of benefits by the workmen under the Memo. dated 7th June 1988, which itself traces to the legal position underscored by In Re: Surinder Singh (supra), remains a constitutional entitlement of the workmen. To the further mind of this Court, such
constitutional entitlement cannot be wiped away when the present workmen stake their claim to it by filing a Second Reference. It does not stand to reason that the such constitutional entitlement would end with the workmen in the First Reference. It again stands to reason that the employer/ANIIDCO is estopped from arguing waiver/acquiescence qua the similarly circumstanced workmen in the Second Reference staking claim to their constitutional entitlement.
....
36. With reference to the above discussion, this Court is persuaded to take notice of the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court In Re: Tukaram Kana Joshi vs. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and Others., reported in 2013) 1 SCC 353 at Paragraph 14. "14. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to when the High Court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of a party who moves it after considerable delay and is otherwise guilty of laches. Discretion must be exercised judiciously and reasonably. In the event that the claim made by the applicant is legally sustainable, delay should be condoned. In other words, where circumstances justifying the conduct exist, the illegality which is manifest, cannot be sustained on the sole ground of laches.
When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have a vested right in the injustice being done, because of a non- deliberate delay. The court should not harm innocent parties if their rights have infact emerged, by delay on the part of the Petitioners. (Vide: Durga Prasad v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, LAO v. Katiji, Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Co. Ltd. v. District Board, Bhojpur, Dayal Singh v. Union of India and Shankara Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. M. Prabhakar."
...
38. Therefore, in the context of the aforementioned discussion this Court is ad idem with the position of law as pronounced In Re: Tarsem Singh (supra) to the extent that the denial of their constitutional entitlement in the facts of the present case constitutes a continuous wrong suffered by the present respondents/the workmen which has been correctly redressed by the Award in the Second Reference as upheld by the Hon'ble Single Bench." 13.
In the backdrop of the aforesaid decision, having regard to the fact that the said decision of Alangaram is equally binding upon this Bench and that the poor workmen were at
the mercy of the employer for engagement and payment and lacks the bargaining power for higher wages for being in fear of losing their jobs as rightly remarked by the learned Single Judge. We hold that the writ petition was rightly allowed 14.
Delay matters where by reason of unexplained delay third party interest have created in the meantime and in the event relief is granted to the writ petitioner, it would affect such third parties is not the case here. The social and economic background of the workers shall be a relevant consideration. 15.
On such consideration, we affirm the order passed by the learned Single Judge and dismissed the appeal. 16.
On the prayer of Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, the time to comply with the award dated 7th September, 2018 is extended by four weeks from date.
17.
The connected applications being CAN/1/2025 & CAN/2/2025 stand disposed of accordingly.
( Soumen Sen, J. ) (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J. )