WP(C) 1936/2010. Gauhati High Court
| Case Number | WP(C) 1936/2010 |
| Judgement Date | August 17, 2019 |
| Court | Gauhati High Court |
I N THE GAUHATI HI GH COURT
(THE HI GH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MI ZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Writ Petition ( C) No.1936 of 2010
-
Hindustan Paper Corporation
Corporate Office 75-C, Park Street Ruby Building, Kolkata
-
Cachar Paper Mill
Panchagram District-Hailakandi
-Versus-
-
The State of Assam
Represented by its Principal Secretary Department of Labour and Employment Dispur, Guwahati
-
The Labour Commissioner
Gopinath Nagar
-
The Assistant Labour Commissioner
Silchar, Cachar
-
Kagajkal Thikadar Sramik Union
Panchagram, District-Hailakandi
……. Respondents.
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTI CE NELSON SAI LO
For the Petitioner : Mr. J Roy, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr.TC Chutia, Advocate
: Mr.AR Sikdar, Advocate
Date of Hearing :07.08.2017
Date of Judgment :17.8.2017
Page 1 of 11
……. Petitioner.
JUDGMENT AND ORDER ( CAV)
Heard Mr. J Roy, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. TC Chutia, the learned Standing Counsel for the Labour Commissioner. Mr. AR Sikdar, the learned counsel appears for the respondent No.4.
-
By this writ petition, the writ petitioners who are the management of Hindustan Paper Mill, Panchgram, Hailakandi District have impugned the enquiry report dated 19.7.2008 (Annexure-K) conducted by the Labour Commissioner, Guwahati, Assam and notification dated 18.9.2008 (Annexure-L) issued by the same authority to comply with the findings of the enquiry officer and to pay the employees/ workman working under the Management similar wages and other benefits to the contractual workers with that of the regular workman in terms of Rule 25(v)(a) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Assam, Rules, 1971.
-
Brief facts of the case may be narrated at the outset. The Labour Commissioner on 3.2.1995 (Annexure-F) noticed that the employees of Cachar Paper Mill, Hindustan Paper Corporation was having two sets of workers i.e., regular finishers and contractual finishers with some element of difference between their status. I t found that the contractual finishers were entitled to emoluments and wages as per Contract Labour Act whereas in case of regular finishers, the terms and conditions of service, method of recruitment, status etc reflected wide variance from the contractual finishers. Therefore, a prima facie view was taken that equalization of status and facilities was not found to be proper. As such, for the time being and as an interim arrangement, the existing
WP (C) No. 1936 of 2010 Page 2 of 11
conditions of wages and other facilities should continue till further evaluation was made and final settlement arrived at.
-
Being dissatisfied with such findings, the employees Union approached this Court by filing Civil Rule No.1359 of 1995 claiming for similar benefits and similar salaries with that of the regular employees. The writ petition was subsequently dismissed on 13.2.1996 (Annexure-G) but on appeal by the employees Union vide WA No.195 of 1996, the same was allowed by holding that the contract labourers engaged by the Cachar Paper Mill performing the job as finishers shall be entitled to the benefits provided under the Rules and accordingly the respondent Mill was directed to provide similar salary and benefits to the contractual workers.
-
Thereafter, the Management i.e., the petitioners herein approached the Apex Court vide Civil Appeal No. 8601 of 2001 which was consequently allowed by the Apex Court by setting aside the order of the Division Bench and remanding the case to the Labour Commissioner to decide the issue raised by the Union by way of representation dehors the observation made by the Division Bench. Consequently, an enquiry was conducted by the Labour Commissioner, Assam and enquiry report prepared vide the impugned report dated 19.7.2008...
To continue reading
Request your trial