JUDGMENT :

SUBRATA TALUKDAR, J.

1. This appeal arises out of the Order of the Hon’ble Single Bench dated 17th of December, 2019 in WP No. 268 of 2019. By the said impugned order, the Hon’ble Single Bench permitted the present respondents, who are employees of Andaman & Nicobar Island Integrated Development Corporation Limited (for short the ANIIDCO), to receive the benefit of the Office Memorandum dated 7th June, 1988 entitling the respondents to receive their arrear benefits for the period between 1994 to 2000 during which they worked as casual labour (at the rate of 1/30th of the minimum pay scale plus dearness allowance) before being subsequently regularised by ANIIDCO w.e.f. 2000.

2. The primary question which arises in this appeal and also arose before the Hon’ble Single Bench is whether the claim of the present respondents, as stated above, is barred by delay and/or is stale. A related question also arises in this appeal as to whether the present respondents are fence-sitters and hence not eligible to the relief as claimed under the Memo dated 7th of June, 1988.

3. Ms. Anjili Nag, Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, the General Manager, ANIIDCO Limited, would submit that the present respondents waited till 2012 for the adjudication of a similar issue to be concluded right upto the Hon’ble Apex Court. It is submitted that a section of casual employees under ANIIDCO first brought a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the 1947 Act) before the Learned Labour Court, Andaman & Nicobar Islands at Port Blair. The parties to the First Reference were 33 employees and they claimed payment of the 1/30th of the minimum pay of the relevant pay scale plus dearness allowance under the Memo dated 7th of June, 1988.

4. Ms. Nag submits that the said Reference, hereinafter called the First Reference, was decided by the Learned Labour Court on the 19th of September, 2008 in favour of the workmen. The same was challenged before the Hon’ble Single Bench of the High Court sitting in Circuit at Port Blair in WP No. 081 of 2009. By the Judgment and Order dated 17th June, 2011, the Hon’ble Single Bench decided the writ petition in favour of the respondents/the workmen.

5. The matter was carried upward by the employer ANIIDCO represented by its General Manager before the Hon’ble Division Bench in FMA 005 of 2011. By the Judgment and Final Order dated 3rd February, 2012, the Hon’ble Division Bench again decided in favour of the respondents/the workmen. However, the Hon’ble Division Bench was pleased to clarify that the Award of the Learned Labour Court dated the 19th of September, 2008 (supra) shall be confined only to the respondents/the workmen who were represented before the Learned Labour Court and hence were also before the Hon’ble Single Bench and the Hon’ble Division Bench. Accordingly, the benefit of 1/30th of the minimum pay scale plus dearness allowance stood extended only to the said workmen whose cause was espoused by the Union before the Learned Labour Tribunal by declaring the same not to be in the nature of a precedent.

6. Ms. Nag would submit that following the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench (supra) by subsequent administrative orders dated 9th May, 2012, 6th June, 2012 and 28th August, 2012, the benefit of 1/30th of minimum pay scale plus dearness allowance was extended in favour of the concerned workmen who were before the Learned Labour Court by way of the First Reference.

7. It is submitted that the present respondents/the workmen woke up in 2014 and claimed equal benefits of 1/30th of the minimum pay scale plus dearness allowance as conferred by the Memorandum dated 7th June, 1988. Upon the refusal of the Board of Directors of ANIIDCO to extend the benefits to the present respondents/the workmen at its 122nd Meeting dated 24th of July, 2014, an industrial dispute was raised resulting in a Conciliation Proceeding held on 9th of January, 2013. The Conciliation Proceeding was held between the Man