Back
2022 Supreme(Gau) 540
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA, J.
Sayed Zakir Hussain, S/o- Lt. Syed Latifur Rahman – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam And 3 Ors – Respondents
WP(C) 2119 of 2016
Decided on : 06-08-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : MS.P KALITA
Point of Law: Section 33C(1) of Act of 1947 provides that if, there is an award in favour of any workman, either, he himself or by any person on his behalf may make an application to appropriate Government for recovery of amount, and if appropriate Government is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to be recovered by Collector of district concerned
Headnote:
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 - Section 33 C (1), 39(b) - Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913 - Sections 4 and 6 - Recovery of money due from an employer - Authority to issue certificate - Petitioner being discontinued by Management of Syedbari Tea Estate, an industrial dispute was raised resulting in Reference Case before learned Labour Court - Reference Case was answered by Award - By Award, learned Labour Court had held that Management was not justified in keeping petitioner workman under suspension for an indefinite period and that he was entitled to a reinstatement with full back wages from date of his suspension. It was held that Management was not justified by not paying subsistence allowance to petitioner at rate of 75% after expiry of 90 (ninety) days from date of suspension. Further it was held that petitioner workman was also entitled to get arrear subsistence allowance at rate of 75% from date of its due - Award itself is clear as to what had been awarded to the workman and the satisfaction can also been arrived from the award itself. (Para 13).
Findings of the Court :
District Collector, is directed to act upon certificate issued by Assistant Labour Commissioner under Section 33C(1) of Act of 1947 for an amount of Rs.2,50,405.47 and any further amount that may have been accrued to workman up-to date of realisation and issue necessary process to recover amount from Management of the Syedbari Tea Estate in the manner of recovery of arrear of land revenue and upon recovering amount from the Management of Syedbari Tea Estate, take necessary steps to pay amount to petitioner workman as per law.
Result: Writ petition stands disposed of.
.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Ms. A Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J K Goswami, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondent no. 1, 3 and 4 respectively, being the Commissioner & Secretary, Labour Department, Government of Assam, Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jorhat and the District Collector, Jorhat.
2. The respondent no. 2 is the Management of Syedbari Tea Estate where the petitioner was a workman.
3. In respect of service on the respondent no. 2, there is an order by the Lawazima Court dated 03.08.2022 providing that there is already an order of the Court dated 22.03.2018 wherein notice was accepted on the respondent no. 2 and further the A/D Card received back upon service although indicates of service, but the seal and signature thereof may be not properly legible. As there is already a judicial order accepting the notice, we proceed with the matter in the absence of respondent no. 2 inasmuch as, no attempt has been made by the said respondent to appear before the Court.
4. The petitioner was a Head Clerk under the Management of Syedbari Tea Estate, Titabor, Jorhat. Upon the service of the petitioner being discontinued by the Management of the Syedbari Tea Estate, an industrial dispute was raised resulting in Reference Case No. 7/1997 before the learned Labour Court, Dibrugarh. The Reference Case No. 7/1997 was answered by the Award, which was passed 10.11.1998. By the Award of 10.11.1998, the learned Labour Court had held that the Management was not justified in keeping the petitioner workman under suspension for an indefinite period and that he was entitled to a reinstatement with full back wages from the date of his suspension. It was held that the Management was not justified by not paying the subsistence allowance to the petitioner at the rate of 75% after expiry of 90 (ninety) days from the date of suspension. Further it was held that the petitioner workman was also entitled to get arrear subsistence allowance at the rate of 75% from the date of its due.
5. Accordingly, the Award of the learned Labour Court made on 10.11.1998 in Reference Case No. 7/1997 was carried forward by the Assam Chah Karmachari Sangha, Jorhat to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jorhat as per the letter no. ACKS/JRT/108/474 dated 09.10.1999, on behalf of the workman, for taking necessary action on the matter. In the process, the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jorhat had given a personal hearing to the Manager of Syedbari Tea Estate, but the Manager failed to appear before the Assistant Labour Commissioner. A show-cause notice dated 21.07.2000 was also issued to the Manager of Syedbari Tea Estate but inspite of it, the Manager of Syedbari Tea Estate had not responded to the notice of the Assistant Labour Commissioner. A subsequent notice was also served by the Assistant Labour Commissioner dated 15.02.2001 upon the Managing Director as well as the Manager of Syedbari Tea Estate but the said notice was also not acted upon by the Management.
6. In the circumstance, the Assistant Labour Commissioner had issued a certificate under Section 33 C (1) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (in short, the Act of 1947) for an amount of Rs.2,50,405.47 in favour of the petitioner workman Syed Zakir Hussain. The Assistant Labour Commissioner by his communication no. LMD.86/2000/PT/1991 dated 24.05.2001 made to the District Collector, Jorhat had made a request for an early realization of the certified amount with any such further amount that may accrue from July, 2000 onwards up-to the date of realization.
7. This writ petition is instituted on the grievance that the communication of the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jorhat dated 24.05.2001 requiring the District Collector, Jorhat to act upon the certificate issued under Section 33 C (1) of the Act of 1947, had not been done so by the District Collector.
8. We have taken notice that there is an Award made on 10.11.1998 in Reference Case No. 7/1997 by the learned Labour Cou
