IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION Appellate Side Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta WP 24851 (W) of 2016 Iman Ali Molla & Ors.

Versus L.I.C.I. and Others For the Petitioners : Mr. Arun Kumar Maiti (Mohanty), Adv.

Mr. R.R. Mohanty, Adv.

Mr. Jasojeet Mukherjee, Adv.

Ms. Snigdha Ghosh, Adv.

Mr. Shivam Saha, Adv.

Ms. Pusprita Chowdhury, Adv.

For the LICI : Mr. Mihir Kundu, Adv.

Heard on : 29.01.2025 Judgment on : 21.03.2025 Ajay Kumar Gupta, J:

1. Petitioner no. 1 worked as Pump Man – cum- Watch man in the L.I.C.I. staff quarter located at 6/1, Chetla Road, L.I.C.I. Staff Quarter, “R” Block, Kolkata – 700 053, petitioner no. 2 worked as Pump Man –cum- Watch Man at the pump room at Behala attached to the Staff Quarter, Kolkata 700 060 and petitioner no. 3 worked as cleaner –cum- sweeper at the L.I.C.I. Staff Quarter, 49, K.P. Roy Lane, Tollygunge, Deshpran Sashmal Road, Kolkata – 700 033 respectively. They were employed since 1982 and 1987 receiving a little monthly remuneration which was being paid by the L.I.C.I.

Authority through the L.I.C.I. staff Licensees Association.

2. The management of the said L.I.C.I. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’) refused to recognize the petitioners and others as their employees. The award dated 27th November, 2001 passed by Learned C.G.I.T., Calcutta in Reference No. 16/1992, which clearly stated that there was no employer-employee relationship between the petitioners and the Corporation. However, the petitioners continued to work without receiving the minimum wages from the corporation in violating the Minimum Wages Act and Abolition of the Labour Contractor Act, 1972.

3. Petitioners contended that by invoking the doctrine of waiver and estoppels, the aforementioned award became redundant and inoperative in the context of the present facts and circumstances of the case of the petitioners as they have been further engaged and continuously worked for the gain of the corporation.

4. In November, 2014, the L.I.C.I. authority surreptitiously served notice for termination of the service of the petitioners and stopped their remuneration. Despite termination, the petitioners continued to work at the corporation as per their request. This relationship established employer and employee bond supported by the various documents presented by Licensees Association. The petitioners claim entitlement of minimum wages for their services, even after their services were terminated. The non-payment of minimum wages violates the Minimum Wages Act and Article 23 of the Constitution of India.

5. The writ petitioners made a prayer for settlement of dispute to the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) of the issue in question, even after the award was passed in November 27, 2001 in Reference No. 16/1992 by the Learned C.G.I.T., Calcutta. The petitioners were allowed to work continuously and were entitled to minimum wages. The corporation continuously paid at a low rate of remuneration even after their termination in October, 2014. The petitioners claimed that they were working continuously without break as such they are entitled to back wages and minimum wages due to continuous nature of work. Thereby, the relation of employer and employee was established and the petitioners are entitled to have the benefit of the same.

6. As per the direction of Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), the Corporation had filed their written statement of defence and the petitioners herein also filed their reply denying and disputing the stand of the corporation.

7. After hearing both sides, the said Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) vide order dated 2nd June, 2016 was pleased to dispose of the claim of the petitioners by holding, inter alia, that the earlier award, specifically mentioned that there is no employer- employee relations between the petitioners and others and the corporation and, therefore, they were not entitled for relief. However, the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) did not c