This writ application has been filed challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 24.10.91 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court at Dibrugarh in Cases No.2 of 1988 under section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, granting interim relief of payment of salary.

2.-1 have heard Shri C. Baruah, learned Advocate for the petitioner and as none appears for the workmen, respondent No.2, I requested Smti. Abha Bhattacharya to appear Amicus Curiae and she has appeared in the matter.

3.The petitioner, herein, is the Management. The case of the petitioner is that some workmen are employed on permanent basis and some are appointed purely on casual basis on daily wages with no obligation to appoint them as and when the particular job is finished. Accordingly 34 persons, named, in paragraph 3, were appointed during plucking season only and they were given job on daily basis and on daily payment. All of them were engaged for a period less than 2 months. Their names were not entered on the work Register for permanent workmen. On 12.5.88 ah application was filed by these 34 persons represented by the Secretary, Sadou Asom Chha Sramik Sangha under section 33 A of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court of Assam at Dibrugarh stating amongst others, that during pendency of Misc Case No. 15 of 1987 before the Labour Court, the Management had stopped the work of the aforesaid 34 persons and from 16.1.88 without written permission from the Court and therefore, the claimants are entitled to wages and compensation on and from 16.1.88. On the basis of this application a case was registered as Misc Case No.2 of 1988. The Management filed the written objection and it was denied that the claimants are continuously. In the garden since 1984as claimed and that they are permanent workers. It was asserted that the persons mentioned are casual workmen being used only in the plucking season. Thereafter on 24.10.91 the impugned Order was passed which is Annexure-D to the writ application. The operative portion of the order reads as follows :

"So the Management will pay the interim relief at the rate of 50% of the last pay drawn by each workmen as interim relief before the next date, failing which the same shall be subjected to be realised as arrear of land revenue." Hence this writ application.

4. The following points are urged by Shri C. Baruah :

(i) Where the Court is considering the complaint under section 33 A of the Act, it has to be finally decided whether an employee should be reinstated or not It is not open to the Court to order reinstatement or to pay wages as an interim relief.

(ii) The order dated 24.10.91 is without jurisdiction,

(iii) There was no material to show that the Management violated section 33 of the Act and as such the impugned order could not have been passed.

5. The object of section 33 is to protect the workmen concerned in .dispute which is formally subject matter of pending proceeding against the victimisation by the employer on account of their having raised industrial dispute or there continuing the pending proceedings. Further the object of the section is to ensure that proceedings in connection with industrial dispute already pending should brought to a termination in a peaceful atmosphere and that no employer should during the pendency of this proceedings, take any action of the kind mentioned in the section which may given rise to fresh disputes likely to-further exacerbate, the already strained relation between the employer and the workmen, (see AIR 1955 SC 258 (Automobiles Products of India Limited vs. Rukmeji Bala). To achieve this objective a ban subject to certain conditions has been imposed by section 33 on the ordinary fight of the employer to alter the terms of the employee's services to their prejudice, or to terminate their services under the general law governing the contract of employment and section 33A provides for relief against the contravention of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document