ORDER

Date : 27-07-2022 Heard Mr. A. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J.K.

Goswami, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 respectively being the authorities in the Labour Department of the Government of Assam and the Deputy Commissioner, Silchar. Also heard Ms. P.

Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4.

2. The respondent No. 4 Shri Deepak Saha was an employee under the writ petitioner Shri Subodh Ranjan Deb. The writ petitioner Shri Subodh Ranjan Deb was the owner of a cinema hall namely Gopinath Talkies in the Silchar Town. The respondent No. 4 had served under the writ petitioner as a Gateman of the cinema hall. His services were dispensed with on an allegation that he was selling certain cinema tickets although his duty otherwise was that of a Gateman.

3. Be that as it may, on the dispensation of the services of the respondent No. 4, he had approached the authorities being the Assistant Labour Commissioner-cum-Appellate Authority under the Assam Shops and Establishment Act, 1971, resulting in Case No. 2/2003. The said case was given its final consideration by the award of the Assistant Labour Commissioner dated 16.08.2004, by which the respondent No. 4 was awarded a compensation of Rs.

1,00,374/-.

4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner instituted WP(C) No. 7295/2004. In the said writ petition, there was an interim order dated 28.09.2004 staying the payment of the awarded amount. The writ petition was given its final consideration by the order dated 22.11.2011. In the circumstance, the awarded amount to the respondent No. 4 remained stayed for a period of 7 years. In the final order dated 22.11.2011, this Court had taken note that the challenge of the petitioner to the award of the Assistant Labour Commissioner did not have any merit and accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed upholding the award. But at the same time, on a concession by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4, the payment of interest for the awarded amount was interfered by the Court. But at the same time in the said order of 22.11.2011, it was provided that considering the gesture shown by the respondent No. 4 i.e. the workman, it was made clear that he would not be entitled to any interest on the principal amount subject to the condition that the writ petitioner pays the amount to the workman on or before 31.01.2012, failing which, the amount would carry interest at bank’s norms from the due date.

5. We have to understand that the purpose of the order dated 22.11.2011 in WP(C) No. 7295/2004 was that if the awarded amount of Rs. 1,00,374/- was not paid on or before 31.01.2012, the same would carry interest at the bank’s norms from the due date i.e. the date of the award which was 16.08.2004. But on the other hand, if the amount was paid on or before 31.01.2012, it would not carry any interest. It is stated that the writ petitioner did not pay the awarded amount on or before 31.01.2012, and on the other hand, various smaller amounts were paid over a period of time and the amount due was paid in full sometime in the year 2014.

6. In the circumstance, as earlier decided by this Court in the order dated 22.11.2011, the writ petitioner was liable for payment of interest. As the petitioner was not cooperating in paying the interest, the matter resulted in a Bakijai proceeding before the Certificate Officer, Silchar, resulting in registration of Certificate Case No. 75/2011-12/Misc. In the said certificate case, the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 were both duly heard. The Certificate Officer in order to arrive at the quantum of interest to be paid had taken the views of the Assistant Labour Commissioner and the Assistant Labour Commissioner by a letter dated 12.08.2015 had provided that the total amount as per the bank’s norms from the due date would be Rs. 90,000/-. Accordingly, by the order dated 21.08.2015 in Certificate Case No. 75/2011-12/Misc. of the Addl. Deputy Commissioner-cum-Certi