MANAGEMENT OF MADHUTING TEA ESTATE Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts of the case have been elaborately noticed in the judgment and order under appeal. Suffice to say that the writ petition instituted by the respondent, Karmachari Sangha, espousing the cause of the workman Sri Dilip Chetry, was allowed by Judgment and Order date 26.08.2013 in WP(C) 615/2006. By the said Judgment, the Award dated 28.12.2004 of the Labour Court, Dibrugarh in Reference Case No. 3/2004 was modified to the extent of granting 50% of the back wages in favour of the workman covering the period from the date when the said workman had been stopped from discharging duties until the date of rejoining in duties.

(2.) MR . S.N. Sarma, learned senior counsel representing the appellant i.e. the Management of Madhuting Tea Estate submits that the said Tea Estate was taken over by the present Management w.e.f. 22.10.2002. As regards the status of the workman, i.e. Sri Dilip Chetry, his name did not appear in the Attendance Roll and therefore the present Management was not aware of the status of the said workman. Knowledge was had about the employment of Sri Dilip Chetry by the erstwhile company only when the workman had raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer in June, 2003. According to the appellant, the workman neither informed the Management regarding his earlier employment nor approached the Management for resumption of work or to be allowed to perform his services. It transpires that the said workman was stopped from discharging duties from August, 2000. However, during the conciliation parley, the present Management, by taking a lenient view agreed to allow the workman to resume his duties. This gesture was not taken in good stead and the workman made demands for resuming his services only on payment of back wages.

(3.) REFERENCE was made to the Labour Court, Dibrugarh by the Government Notification dated 13.01.2004, primarily on the following points: