When a procedural direction to determine the binding effect of an agreement becomes redundant due to the non-existence of the agreement, the adjudicating authority must proceed to decide the industrial dispute on its merits to ensure expeditious resolution.

JUDGMENT :

Devashis Baruah, J.

Heard Mr. K. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. M. Chetia, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of all the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

2. Taking into account the order which this court proposes to pass, this Court dispenses with the service upon the Respondent No.3.

3. The Petitioner herein has assailed the order dated 20.04.2026 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Dibrugarh in Reference Case No. 02/2021.

4. A perusal of the said order reveals that the learned Industrial Tribunal, Dibrugarh, was perturbed by the actions on the part of the Petitioner in delaying the reference proceedings on one hand and on the other hand, having not filed any application seeking clarification before this Court. The said aspect prima facie appears to be correct as the application seeking clarification was filed on 20.04.2026 before this Court as submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that too when the learned Industrial Tribunal directed the Petitioner to seek clarification on 16.10.2025.

5. Be that as it may, this Court finds it very pertinent to take note of the brief facts which led to the filing of the instant writ petition.

6. An industrial dispute arose in Mahakali Tea Estate on account of changing the existing service conditions and discontinuance of pensionary benefits enjoyed by the retired staff employees with effect from 15.09.2020. Resultantly, a notification was issued on 08.03.2021 by the Government of Assam notifying in terms of reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act of 1947’). The terms of reference were mentioned in the Schedule to the notification dated 08.03.2021. The terms of reference as mentioned in the Schedule to the notification dated 08.03.2021 being relevant are reproduced herein under:

“1. Whether the management of Mahakali Tea Estate is justified to notify the notice under Section 9A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 for changing of existing service condition and discontinuance of pensionary benefit enjoyed by the retired staff employees w.e.f. 15-09-2020?

2. If not whether the staff employees of Mahakali Tea Estate can enjoy the existing pension benefit as per agreement dated 11.05.1990?

3. If not, what any other relief is entitled in lieu thereof?”

7. It further appears that the Petitioner Tea Estate had filed a writ petition being WP(C) No.5586/2021 challenging an order dated 06.09.2021 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Dibrugarh in Reference Case No.2/2021. It is also relevant to take note of that the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court disposed of the said writ petition filed by the Petitioner along with another writ petition being WP(C) No. 5574/2021.

8. At this stage, it is relevant to observe that WP(C) No.5574/2021 was also filed by another Petitioner challenging a similar order dated 06.09.2021 passed in Reference Case No.1/2021 by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Dibrugarh. The records further reveal that though there was a challenge to the order dated 06.09.2021, the Petitioner had given up the challenge and limited its prayer before the learned Coordinate Bench thereby seeking a direction upon the learned Industrial Tribunal, Dibrugarh to decide on the question of the binding affect of the agreement vis-à-vis Section 18 of the Act of 1947. The learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide an order dated 19.09.2022 disposed of both the writ petitions bei