Claims for employment related to land acquisition must comply with statutory provisions, and significant delays can bar such claims.

JUDGMENT :

ANANYA BANDYOPADHYAY, J.

1. The petitioners have approached this Hon’ble Court invoking its extraordinary constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to engage the petitioner no. 1 under the Land-Loser category, and to extend suitable employment to the nominee of petitioner no. 3, whose land was acquired for the establishment of the Kolaghat Thermal Power Project of the West Bengal State Electricity Board (now under the WBPDCL).

2. It is the admitted position that during 1973-74, the ancestral land belonging to Smt. Lata Rani Manna (petitioner no. 3), being C.S. Plot Nos. 600 and 602 of Mouza Rakshachak, J.L. No. 293, P.S. Panskura, was acquired in connection with the said thermal power project vide L.A. Case No. 141 of 1973-74. Possession of the said land was duly taken on 30th July, 1974, and compensation was disbursed on 27th January, 1980. Thereafter, the competent Land Acquisition Officer, Midnapore, by certificate dated 20th March, 1986, formally declared her as a “Land Loser” entitled to the benefits conferred upon such category of affected persons.

3. The record reveals that upon acquisition, the respondent authorities had assured that one eligible family member of the land-loser would be provided employment under the land-losers’ rehabilitation scheme. Acting on such assurance, the husband of petitioner no. 3, Sri Ananta Kumar Mula (petitioner no. 2), was called upon by the respondent project authorities by letter dated 10th December, 1981, to submit his credentials in connection with his candidature under the said category. Subsequently, vide letter dated 12th January, 1984, the said petitioner was directed to appear in a written test scheduled on 28th January, 1984.

4. The petitioner no. 2, along with similarly situated persons, filed C.O. No. 8497 (W) of 1991, praying for regularization of their services, which was allowed by this Hon’ble Court on 7th April, 1999. Though the management preferred M.A.T. No. 2243 of 1999, the Hon’ble Division Bench, by order dated 14th December, 2004, did not materially interfere with the single bench order. Thereafter, the matter travelled up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2863 of 2006, whereupon by order dated 21st April, 2010, the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to set aside the orders under appeal, granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the concerned authority for redressal of grievances in accordance with law.

5. In the interregnum, petitioner no. 2 continued as a contract labourer under various contractors engaged by the respondent power project. These contractors acted as ostensible employers, maintaining administrative control and statutory compliances, including EPF and ESI contributions, though the actual work was performed under the direct supervision and control of the principal employer, i.e., the respondent power utility.

6. Subsequently, the contract labourers, including the petitioner no. 2, raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication before the Learned Second Labour Court, being Reference Case No. VIII-85/2014, wherein, inter alia, the issue of whether the contract between WBPDCL and its contractor was a “sham and camouflage” to defeat the workmen’s l