INDIAN STATISTICAL INSTITUTE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the Indian Statistical Institute, Calcutta, against the Judgment dated May 31, 1978 by a learned single Judge discharging the Rule. The Indian Statistical Institute prayed to recall, rescind and/or cancel the two notices dated March 2, 1971 and April 26, 1975 issued by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 in P.W.A. Case No. 20 of 1971. The learned Trial judge came to the conclusion that an ex-employee is entitled to maintain or make a claim under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act and the claim made by Jyotish Chandra Bhunia, the respondent No. 3 and others before the Authority in P.W.A. Case No. 20 of 1971 was lawful, maintainable and entertainable.

(2.) Mr. Kundu, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Indian Statistical Institute, made comprehensive submissions and tried to emphasise that the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 are not applicable so far as the I.S.I, is concerned. In this connection he drew the attention of the Court to Section 1(4) of the Payment of Wages Act as well as Sub-clauses (a) to (g) of Clause (ii) of Section 2 of the said Act. From the sections referred to hereinbefore it appears that this Act is applicable to persons employed in any factory or an industrial or other establishment including tramway service or transport service engaged in carrying passengers or goods or both by road for hire or reward; Air transport service; dock, wharf or jetty; inland vessel, mechanically propelled; mine, quarry or oil- field; plantation; workshop or other establishment in which articles are produced or manufactured etc. and any establishment in which any work relating the construction, development or maintenance of buildings, roads, bridges or canals, navigation, irrigation, generation, distribution of electricity etc. are carried on. The attention of the Court was drawn by Mr. Kundu to the last proviso of Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act which provides that any application may be admitted after the said period of 12 months when the applicant satisfies the Authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period. In this matter the Authority under the said Act on April 26, 1975 held that the explanation given by the applicant for the delay in filing this claim was justified and the delay was condoned. According to the learned Advocate for the petitioner the applicants were in the service of the I.S.I, from 1960 to 1966 and thereafter the I.S.I, made arrangement to their employment in the Garden Reach Workshop Ltd., a Public Sector Undertaking of the Union Government, and they accepted the said employment. After the applicants had joined the Garden Reach Workshop Ltd., there was no relationship of employer and employee between the applicants and the writ petitioner since November 22, 1966.

(3.) It appears that there was a compromise between the workmen of the I.S.I. Workers Organisation and the management of the I.S.I. where some agreement was arrived at and on the basis of such compromise and in terms of joint petition of settlement a 'no dispute' award was made by the learned 4th Industrial Tribunal on June 29, 1973. So far as the delay is concerned, the Authority has already condoned the delay on April 26, 1975 and it will not be proper on our part to take away the benefit of this condonation from the workmen. The Supreme Court in so many decisions has condoned long delays of decades and we do not find why Jyotish Chandra Bhunia and 54 others should be deprived of from the benefit which has already accrued in their favour by the decision of the Authority. The case must be contested on merits and not on technicalities to deprive a poor section of the Society from some benefit if they are so entitled to.