JOSEPH TIGGA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants were employees of Wimco company who closed down their unit in these islands in 1991-92. The appellants were residing in the Company quarters which they refused to vacate. The Workers' Union entered into a Memorandum of Settlement with the management of Wimco under Section 18 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was agreed upon by and between the parties that the company would make payment of retrenchment compensation upon vacating of the quarters. It was alleged that the appellants did not vacate the quarters despite payment being offered to them. In 1995 the property was purchased by Andaman Timber Industries limited. However, Andaman Timber did not get vacant possession. As such, they filed several litigations as against the occupants including the appellants. In the meantime, the property was acquired by the Administration. The land acquisition case being L. A. Case No. 5/2001 was heard and disposed of by the district Judge inter alia holding that Andaman timber would be entitled to entire compensation deposited in Court being Rs. 73,73,177/ -. By the said award a sum of Rs. 80,000/- was awarded to the eight evictees including the appellants and both the appellants were awarded Rs. 10,000/- each.

(2.) BEING aggrieved by the said award, a writ petition was filed by the appellants. Pertinent to mention, the award was published on October 6, 2004, whereas, the writ petition was filed on March 28, 2005. In Paragraph 6 of the said writ petition the appellants gave reasons for delay in moving the Court. According to them, they engaged a senior counsel at Kolkata and there had been lapse of considerable time in consulting senior lawyer for preparation of the writ petition.

(3.) THE writ petition time to time appeared before the Circuit Bench seeking directions for filing affidavits. Ultimately, by an order dated july 29, 2005 the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, as the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner conceded before the learned single Judge that the writ petition was not maintainable and appropriate remedy was by way of an appeal. The learned Judge permitted the appellants to withdraw the writ petition with a corresponding liberty to agitate their grievance in appropriate forum.