JUDGMENT :

Kalyan Rai Surana, J.

Heard Mr. P.K. Tiwari, the learned advocate assisted by Mr. B. Das and Mr. R.J. Das, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J.S. Bhattacharjee, the learned advocate for the respondent No.1. This Court by order dated 26.03.2019 had exempted the respondent No.2, being the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court from being represented in this writ petition.

2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged judgment and award dated 01.04.2015 passed by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, Assam, Guwahati in Reference Case No.23/2012 and 24/2012. By the said award, it was held that the action of the petitioner by not regularising the services of 25 casual/ contingent employees who are contesting the reference or not granting equal pay for equal works at par to the regular workers are not legal and justified and by further holding that the 25 casual/ contingent employees are entitled to regularization with financial benefits with effect from 23.04.2004, the date on which the Managing Director has accepted the recommendation of Mr. L. Rahman Committee.

3. The summary of facts of the case is that the Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India had made a reference by order dated 04.07.2012 in respect of the dispute between the Management of NERAMAC i.e. North Eastern Regional Agricultural Marketing Corporation Limited (petitioner) and the NERAMAC Worker's Union (respondent No.1). The said reference was registered as Ref. Case No. 23/2012. A similar reference was again made by the Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India by order dated 12.07.2012 in respect of the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.1, which was registered as Ref. Case No. 24/2012. By order dated 22.04.2013, both the aforesaid reference cases were amalgamated and the following amalgamated reference was taken up for adjudication by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, Assam, Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as "CGIT & LC" for short), viz.,

Whether the action of the Management of NERAMAC by not regularizing the services of 32 casual/ contingent workers or not granting equal pay for equal work at par to the regular employees instantly are legal and justified? What those groups of casual workers/ contingent workers are entitled to?

4. The case of the respondent No.1, as projected before the learned CGIT & LC inter alia was that altogether 32 casual employees were appointed in various zones as well as Head Office and at Fruit Juice Concentration Plant (FJCP), Nalkata on various dates from 1989 to 2001. 8 were engaged in the year 1989, 1 in the year 1992, 3 in the year 1994, 2 in 1995, 13 in 1996, 2 in 1997, 2 in 1998 and 1 in 1999. According to the Management, out of these 32 casual employees, 9 were Typist, 1 Electrician and 22 Manual Labourers. However, at present only 25 casual employees are engaged and 7 of the casual employees had left the Organization. It was also pleaded by the respondent No.1 that some of the workmen have completed 22 years of service and they are being provided with CPF, leave, gratuity and medical benefits at par with the regular employees of the Management but they are getting paltry amount of daily wages inspite of working on full time basis since 1988. In 1990, the respondent No.1 had placed its demand for regularisation of the casual employees but without any outcome. The respondent No.1 had raised the dispute relating to non-regularisation of the workmen before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Silchar, who initiated the discussion with both the parties and tried to work out a conciliation. Subsequently, a tripartite meeting was held on 29.11.2011 amongst the Management, respondent No.1 and the Assistant Labour Commissioner, but no settlement could be arrived at. It was stated that Mr. L. Rahman Committee was constituted by the Management to ascertain the feasib