The General Secretary v. The Director (Cari)/Ciari-Icar

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/342/2024 The General Secretary Vs.

The Director (CARI)/CIARI-ICAR Mr. Nadeem Akhtar Khan ... for the petitioner Mr. V. D. Sivabalan ... for the respondent March 17, 2025 [SR] Item No.27 1.

The writ petition is directed against an order passed by the Labour Court dated 22nd February, 2024 in an application under section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Dispute Act. 2.

In the said application, the writ petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondent to pay the arrears of dues under section 17 B of Industrial Disputes Act as has been assessed and quantified in paragraphs 26, 27 and 28 of the said application.

3.

The petitioner claimed to have been working under the Central Agricultural Research Institute between 1986 and 1991. Their services were discontinued. They raised industrial dispute and an award was passed in favour of the petitioners by the Labour Court. The said award was under challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Special Leave Petition was disposed of on 24.10.2016 by the following observations:

1. The appellants approached this Court challenging the Award passed by the Labour Court and as confirmed by the High Court.

2. Taking note of the fact that the appellants have paid wages in terms of the Section 17 B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for quite long, a suggestion was made as to whether the appellants would be interested to have a one-time settlement, leaving the question of law, as to whether the Appellant No.1 is an industry or not, open.-

3. Apropos the suggestion, the appellants have now framed a Scheme, a copy of which has been produced before this Court alongwith additional affidavit.

4. The learned counsel for contesting respondents submits that the scheme as such is not acceptable to the workers. Be that as it may, now that the appellants have framed a Scheme with regard to the settlement of grievance of the partyrespondents, we are of the view that these appeals should be disposed of directing the appellants to implement the Scheme, in substitution of the award passed by the Labour Court. Ordered accordingly.

5. However, we make it clear that in case the party-respondents have any surviving grievance, it will be open to them to make a representation before appellant No.1 or pursue the same in appropriate proceedings.

6. In view of the ensuing Diwali Festival, we direct the appellants to disburse the benefits in terms of the Scheme on or before 29th October, 2016.

7. The appeals are disposed of. No costs."

4.

The Union filed an application before the Labour Court under section 33 C (2) claiming that the case of illegal retrenchment of the mazdoors during the aforesaid period, they would be entitled to minimum wages for the aforesaid period and as revised from time to time. It was stated that the right of

workmen to the amount equivalent to the wages notified under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is recognition of the constitutional mandate and they are entitled to legal right to wages under Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

5.

However, the difficulty in granting such relief arises by reason of fact that the award was substituted by the scheme and the application under Section 17 B could be filed only when there is an order of reinstatement. The basis of application being 17B which is not available to the writ petitioner, the order of Labour Court does not call for any interference. 6.

The writ petition fails. However, no order as to costs. ( Soumen Sen, J. )