The Deputy Conservator of Forests vs Shri P. Tata Rao etc.

Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.—The petitioner in this WP under art. 226 dated February 9, 2012 is questioning an award of the Labour Court, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Port Blair dated August 30, 2011 (WP p.165) answering the reference concerned in the affirmative. The award was made in an ID Case No. 3 of 2001 that the Labour Court registered on receipt of an order of reference dated August 2, 2001 made by the Andaman & Nicobar Administration under s. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The issue referred for adjudication was as follows:-

Whether the demand of 47 daily rated mazdoors (Annexure A) represented by the Secretary, A & N Wild Life Workers Union, Port Blair to the Deputy Conservator of Forests (Wildlife) for extending the pay benefit to them in accordance with the Govt. of India, Department of Personnel & Training OM No. 49014/2/86-Estt. (c) dated 7.6.88 at the rate of 1/30th of the pay plus dearness allowance for day''s work of eight hours at the minimum of the same nature of work is legal and entitled? If so, what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to?

Mr. Mandal appearing for the petitioner submits that without stating how the claim of the workmen had been established and what made them entitled to the financial benefits they were claiming, the Labour Court casually passed a cryptic award. Mr. Kumar appearing for the respondent finds little to say in justification of the award. He has said that the workmen concerned are the only sufferers.

It is evident from the award of the Labour Court that the award was passed without discussing the evidence given by the parties to the reference in proof of their respective cases. I think it will be appropriate to quote the relevant parts of the award of the Labour Court.

The Labour Court first said as follows:-

To substantiate the claim, Mr. K.R. Pandi deposed on behalf of 1st party workmen. In his affidavit in chief he has narrated the grievance in such way as if it is the replica of statements of demands. In course of cross examination. 2nd party workmen failed to elicit anything which could help the 2nd party. At the time of argument, 1st party workmen referred to a decision passed in connection with Industrial Disputes (L.C.) case No. 4/97 by my Ld. Predecessor in office which was based on the judgment of Hon''ble Apex court (passed in C/W WP 59/60 and 563-70/83 dated 17.1.86).

The Labour Court then said as follows:-

The Hon''ble Circuit Bench, in another case bearing no WP(AN) 004/01 observed "Therefore, it appears that the petitioners are entitled to get the pay considering the pay scale available to the post they are working".

2nd party wanted to assail the submission of 1st party by referring some judgments. But those judgments do not fit in this case. They also wanted to say that the service condition and responsibility of DRM and regular posts are different.

The Labour Court then said as follows:-

After hearing the argument of both sides, I find that the grievance of the 1st party is justified. But a court of law can not be oblivious to the mandate of our constitution ''equality before the law''. Mere acceptance to do the job on condition that they will not be paid salary, as has been getting by the regular employees, who are rendering similar job, does not take away their constitutional right. The Administration cannot treat it as an escape route. Depriving these employees by wearing this technical ''cloak'' is neither acceptable nor justified. A welfare state cannot do that. Therefore, I am of the view that these 47 workmen are also entitled to get the wages at the rate of 1/30th of the pay at the minimum of relevant pay scale.

The Labour Court lastly ordered as follows:-

... the 1st party workmen are entitled to wages at the rate of 1/30th of the pay at the minimum of relevant pay scale for work of 8 hours of a day with effect from the date of their engagement.

It is evident from the whole of the relevant parts of the award quoted hereinbefore that referring to and relying on certain decisions, not discussed, and certain abstract propositions, the Labour Court passed the award granting the workmen the claimed benefits and saddling the petitioner with the financial liability.

The Labour Court was under an obligation to decide the referred issue closely examining the evidence given by the parties to the reference in proof of their respective cases and the laws and decisions which were applicable to the case. In my opinion, the Labour Court has committed a grave error of jurisdiction. For these reasons, I set aside the impugned award, allow the WP to this extent and order a fresh decision on the referred issue. No costs. Certified xerox.