Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
S.C. DAS, J.
Sri Hiralal Debnath, S/o Lt Pheduchandra Debnath & Ors. - Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Tripura & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) 144, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167 OF 2016
Decided On : 30-11-2016
Laches - Industrial Workers - Tripura Govt. Service (Revised Pay) rules 1975 - [1974) 1 SCC 317, (2011) 5 SCC 607, (2010) 12 SCC 538] - The court considered the principle of laches in the context of industrial workers claiming entitlement to a specific pay scale. It emphasized that delay should not automatically disentitle a genuine litigant from relief and that each case should be decided on its own facts. The court also highlighted that the denial of benefit occurs every month when the salary is paid, giving rise to a fresh cause of action based on continuing wrong. The judgment restricted the payment of arrears to a period of three years prior to the date of the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, industrial workers under the Department of Industries and Commerce, sought the pay scale of Rs.240-440/- w.e.f. 01.04.1979, claiming they were wrongly placed in a lower pay scale. The respondents argued that the claim was barred by delay and laches.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioners were entitled to the pay scale of Rs.240-440/- w.e.f. 01.04.1979 and directed the respondents to grant the same. It restricted the payment of arrears to a period of three years prior to the date of the writ petition.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners' claim for the pay scale was barred by delay and laches.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that delay should not automatically disentitle a genuine litigant from relief and that the denial of benefit occurs every month when the salary is paid, giving rise to a fresh cause of action based on continuing wrong. It also restricted the payment of arrears to a period of three years prior to the date of the writ petition.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were allowed, and the petitioners were granted the pay scale of Rs.240-440/- w.e.f. 01.04.1979. The payment of arrears was restricted to a period of three years prior to the date of the writ petition.
On the prayer of learned counsel of both side, all the writ petitions, mentioned above, were heard together since identical fact and question of law involved in all the cases and hence, this common judgment is passed in respect of all the writ petitions.
2. WP(C) 144 of 2016, as prayed for by learned counsel of both side, is treated as the lead case. The other writ petitioners referred to the pleadings and documents filed in WP(C) 144 of 2016 and prayed for same relief. The respondents also in the other writ petitions by filing counter affidavit relied on the pleadings and documents referred to in the counter affidavit filed in WP(C) 144 of 2016.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel, Ms. S. Deb (Gupta) submitted that the present writ petitions are covered by judgment dated 29.04.2014, passed in WP(C) 490 of 2005 and WP(C) 491 of 2005 (common judgment) and also judgment dated 18.03.2014, passed in WP(C) 305 of 2005 and WP(C) 306 of 2005 (common judgment). It is emphatically submitted by Ms. Deb (Gupta) that the petitioners of those writ cases and the petitioners of present writ cases are similarly situated and so they are entitled to the same relief.
4. By filing the writ petitions, the petitioners prayed for the following reliefs :-
“(i) Admit the petition of the petitioner.
(ii) Call for records from the custody of the respondents, having relevance to the subject matter.
(iii) Issue writ directing the respondents and each of them to allow the petitioner the scale of pay of Rs.240-440/- w.e.f. 01.04.1979 in the similar mode as has been provided to the other similarly situated employee by dint of the order No.F.DI/ESTT/IV-27/2013/18686-761, dated 29.12.2014 forthwith and with all actual financial and service benefits or pass such further order or orders, direction or directions as the Hon’ble High Court may deem fit and proper having regards to the circumstances of the case.
(iv) A Writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to grant the pay scale of Rs.240-440 under the Tripura Govt. Service (Revised Pay) rules 1975 and/or corresponding revise pay scale from time to time to the petitioner and for payment of consequential arrear of salary.
(v) Issue Writ directing the Respondents and each of them to treat the petitioners alike the employee whose name appear in the order No.F.DI/ESTT/IV-27/2013/18686-761, dated 29.12.2014 while implementing the Judgment dated 29.04.2014 passed by the Hon’ble High Court in W.P(C) 490/2005 & 491/2005.”
5. The petitioners contended that they along with other workers under the Department of Industries and Commerce were regularized as Industrial workers w.e.f. 01.04.1979 by an order dated 21.08.1979, but, they were wrongly placed in the pay scale of Rs.170-210/- whereas they were entitled to the pay scale of Rs.240-440/- w.e.f. 01.04.1979. Some of the similarly situated Industrial workers approached Labour Court by filing Labour Case No.01/1998 and the Labour Court by judgment dated 14.12.2000 held that those Industrial workers were entitled to the pay scale of Rs.240-440/- w.e.f. 01.04.1979. That order was challenged before the High Court by filing WP(C) 546 of 2001 and the High Court upheld the order of the Labour Court by judgment dated 15.11.2002.
6. It is submitted by learned counsel, Ms. Deb (Gupta) that the State-respondents preferred Special Leave Petition but Special Leave Petition was also dismissed which is reflected in judgment dated 08.10.2013 passed by this Court in WP(C) 7 of 2006. A copy of that judgment also placed on record.
7. It is an admitted position that the Govt. of Tripura by issuing order dated 17.03.2005 implemented that judgment passed by the Labour Court and affirmed by the Writ Court allowing those petitioners the pay scale of Rs.240-440/- w.e.f. 01.04.1979.
It is also an admitted position that the petitioners of WP(C) 490 of 2005 and WP(C) No.491 of 2005 as well as the petitioners of WP(C) 305 of 2005 and WP(C) 306 of 2005 were also similarly situat
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
