Denying permanent status to workers with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen constitutes unfair labour practice under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

1. Heard Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. None has appeared for the respondent.

3. Petitioners are workmen of Messaijan Tea Estate (referred to as “workmen” hereafter) and respondent is the management of the Tea Estate (referred to as “management” hereafter).

4. By filing this petition, the five workmen have challenged the legality and validity of the award dated 20.04.2004 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Dibrugarh in Reference No. 3/2001.

5. Case of the workmen is that there is a clone nursery attached to the Tea Estate where more than 70 workers were employed on casual basis which included the petitioners. They were engaged as casual worker for a long time. Despite raising of demands from time to time for conferring permanent status to these workers, management did not accept the demand. In the year 1998, the management agreed to make 44 of the 70 workers permanent and assured to consider the case of further 16 workers for conferring permanent status vide memorandum of settlement dated 05.05.1998. In spite of such settlement, management did not give permanent status to the 16 workers. While 44 of the workmen were conferred permanent status 16 were denied such status. Alleging discrimination and indulging in unfair labour practice by the management, an industrial dispute was raised on behalf of the 16 workmen including the petitioners. Though conciliation was resorted to, the same failed. Ultimately, the dispute had to be referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Dibrugarh for adjudication. The reference was made by the appropriate Government i.e. the Govt. of Assam in the Labour Department vide notification dated 08.03.2001. The issues referred for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal were as follows:-

“1. Whether the management of Messaijan Division out garden of Samdang Tea Estate of Doom Dooma India Division under Hindustan Level Ltd. have committed unfair Labour practice by denying the status of permanent workman to their 16 No. of employees as shown in Annexure-A.

2. If no what relief the workman are entitled to.”

6. Thus the issue for adjudication was whether management had committed unfair labour practice by denying permanent status to the 16 workmen as per Annexure-A which included the petitioners. If the answer to the said issue was in the negative, then to what relief the workmen would be entitled to.

7. The reference was registered as Reference No. 3/2001.

8. On notice being issued by the Industrial Tribunal, both workmen and the management appeared and submitted written statement.

9. In the course of the proceedings, the workmen adduced two witnesses and the management adduced one witness. It appears that only one document was executed which is a letter dated 04.03.1995 of the Secretary of the Assam Chah Mazdoor Sangha addressed to the management.

10. Thereafter the matter was heard. On consideration of rival submissions and on perusal of the evidence on record, the Industrial Tribunal came to the conclusion that the management had not committed unfair labour practice by denying permanent status to the 16 workmen.

11. Hence, this writ petition.

12. Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the workmen has referred to the evidence adduced by both the management witness and the witnesses on behalf of the workmen and contends that the evidence before the Industrial Tribunal clearly pointed out towards commission of unfair labour practice by the management. Even the exhibitted document shows that the management did not consider conferment of permanent status on the 16 workmen, including the petitioners though assurance to that effect was given in the memorandum of settlement. Therefore, the Industrial Tribunal was not justified in holding that the management had not committed unfair labour practice.

13. Submission made by learned counsel for the workmen is considered.

14. I have also perused the lower court record.

15. On due consideration, I am of the view that the finding a