The Executive Engineer Vs Smti.N.Palayee

The writ petition has been filed against the award dated July 29, 2025, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Port Blair in I.D. Case No.02 of 2024, in exercise of powers conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 10 read with sub-section (5) of Section 12 and sub-section (2-A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The schedule of reference is quoted below:

¶13

“SCHEDULE OF REFERENCE

¶14

“Whether the action of the Executive Engineer, South Andaman Division with respect to retrenchment of Smt N. Palayee, Ex-DRM is legal and justified? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”

¶15

The respondent was engaged as a Daily Rated Mazdoor (DRM) in the department of APWD, Andaman and Nicobar Administration since 2013. She was granted the benefit of enhanced wages at the rate of 1/30^th of the minimum pay plus dearness allowance with effect from September 01, 2017. The respondent was deployed to the office of the Tehsildar, Port Blair. The respondent and another similarly situated DRM filed a complaint before the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor, A & N

¶16

2

¶17

Islands and the Chief Secretary, A & N Administration against the Executive Engineer and also against the Assistant Engineer, APWD, South Andaman Division, alleging harassment. The Superintending Engineer, Port Blair Central Circle, APWD constituted an Inquiry Committee consisting of engineers of the APWD to make an inquiry and to file a report on or before April 23, 2022, before the Superintending Engineer, PBCC, APWD, Port Blair.

¶18

Upon conclusion of the inquiry, the Executive Engineer, South Andaman Division issued a notice on July 4, 2022 under section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, retrenching the respondent from service after one month from the date of receipt of the said notice.

¶19

The respondent submitted her reply on July 15, 2022 to the Executive Engineer, with a request to withdraw the said complaint indicating that she was willing to continue her duty as a DRM.

¶20

The report of the inquiry was not furnished to the respondent but she obtained the same under the Right to Information Act. The respondent contended before the Labour Court that, upon completion of her tenure under the Tehsildar, Port Blair, she was relieved from the office and was directed to report at her parent department. When she went to her parent department, i.e. office of the Executive Engineer, APWD, South Andaman Division, she was not allowed to report for duty and was verbally informed that she had been retrenched from service. Thereafter, the respondent submitted a demand before the Labour Commissioner (Conciliation Officer), Andaman and

¶21

3

¶22

Nicobar Administration, Port Blair for a direction upon the Executive Engineer, APWD, South Andaman Division to reinstate her in service and pay her consequential benefits.

¶23

A conciliation proceeding was initiated and the Labour Court recorded that the Conciliation Officer had found that the allegation of inefficiency at work could not be proved. Although, the Assistant Engineer who appeared before the Conciliation Officer had submitted that the department would produce documents in support of non-performance of the respondent, no documents were produced before the Conciliation Officer and as such, the case was not settled. Two further representations dated October 25, 2023 and November 20, 2023 were sent to the Chief Secretary A & N Administration, Port Blair with a request to intervene in the matter and pass necessary orders for reinstatement. As no order was passed, the proceeding commenced before the Labour Court.

¶24

The Labour Court recorded that the respondent had alleged harassment by her superior officer, after she was directed to join the office of the Tehsildar. Submissions on behalf of the parties were recorded in detail. Reliance was placed by the petitioner, on the report of the Committee, constituted for the purpose of inquiry. The Committee also included a lady officer. It was urged by the petitioner that, upon completion of the inquiry by the Internal Committee, action was taken against the respondent from the Circle Office, based on the contents of the report.

¶25

4

¶26

The case of the petitioner was that, the law permitted retrenchment with one month notice. The notice was given to the respondent and upon expiry of such period, she was automatically out of service on the ground of retrenchment. She was retrenched because of her misconduct. It was further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that reinstatement of the respondent would vitiate the atmosphere of the work place and would become a precedence, inasmuch as, a lady mazdoor who had made false complaint against her superior officer could not be allowed to continue as she would influence other similarly situated mazdoors to go against their superiors, just to avoid doing the job. The Labour Court considered the evidence-inchief and cross-examination that was led by the parties.

¶27

The Labour Court found that, although, the notice under section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act was based on the report of the Inquiry Committee, no such recommendation or observations had been made by the Committee with regard to the proposal for retrenchment of the petitioner. It was held that, the Committee did not have jurisdiction to make such recommendation as the same was constituted only to look into the complaint filed by the respondent, and nothing beyond.

¶28

It has been recorded that no such report had been submitted in evidence, which would show that the contents of the notice dated June 01. 2022 were based on recommendations, observations and findings against the respondent, by the said Committee. The Labour Court held that, in the absence of the inquiry Committees’ report, adverse

¶29

5

¶30

presumption should be drawn against the petitioner’s department. The recommendation of the Inquiry Committee which were claimed to be the reason for retrenchment of the respondent, were beyond the scope and domain of the Committee, as per the learned Court.

¶31

The Conciliation Officer reported that the department had no documentary evidence to prove inefficiency of the respondent. The Conciliation Officer also recorded that the employer’s representative submitted that, proof of non-performance would be placed before the Conciliation Officer, but nothing was produced. It was also admitted in the cross-examination of D-1 and exhibit WW-5 that, the prayer of the respondent for reinstatement was pending before a higher authority. The order recorded that the Conciliation Officer, issued a reminder letter, but the department failed to submit the final documents without paying any heed to the letter of the Conciliation Officer. The retrenchment notice was issued under clause 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, allegedly, on the basis of an Inquiry Committee’s report. The allegation that the petitioner was not performing her duty and was creating nuisance and a negative environment was not accepted. According to the Labour Court, no case had been made out for retrenchment of the respondent under clause 25 F of the I.D.Act, 1947. No such report was forthcoming.

¶32

The retrenchment notice was found to be issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. Misconduct was

¶33

6

¶34

not proved before the Court. Various case laws had been relied upon by the Labour Court in this regard.

¶35

Mr. V.D.Sivabalan, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court failed to take into consideration the notice dated June 01, 2022 issued by the Superintending Engineer, Central Circle, APWD wherein the reasons for issuing such notice had been disclosed. Failure to perform her duty, creating nuisance and a negative environment, were the grounds for retrenchment. The inquiry report was also not considered in its right perspective by the said Court. The grounds stated were, inefficiency, nil output, filing of a false and fabricated complaint and willful intimidation to a superior officer. Further reasons were, commission of nuisance and promoting a negative environment at the work place. According to Mr. Sivabalan, the respondent was guilty of misconduct, and as such, the action taken was justified.

¶36

Mr. Ananda Halder, learned advocate for the respondent submits that the inquiry report on the basis of which the notice was issued by the Superintending Engineer, Central Circle, on June 01, 2022, did not contain any finding as to the inefficiency of the respondent. There were no findings that the respondent had created any negative environment in the workplace by filing false complaints and by creating nuisance.

¶37

I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and I find that, the learned Labour Court had gone into the each and every aspect of the matter. The Labour Court had rightly observed that, the scope of the inquiry was only with regard to

¶38

7

¶39

the complaint filed by the respondent against her superior officer. The report indicates that the complaint was closed as it was found that the contents of the same were false and fabricated and there was no cogent evidence in support thereof.

¶40

The report does not in any way contain any finding that the respondent was either creating nuisance or encouraging a negative environment in the office or that, the respondent was inefficient and did not perform her duties, although she was paid wages regularly. The reasons for retrenchment made out by the Executive Engineer, South Andaman Division, could not be proved before the Labour Court. Moreover, there was evidence before the Labour Court that, a higher authority was already considering the issue of reinstatement of the respondent. It also appears that the respondent had requested for permission to withdraw the complaint and perform her duties.

¶41

The notice issued by the Superintending Engineer, Central Circle on June 01, 2022 also mentions the report of the committee, inter alia, stating that the respondent had not been performing her duties, but was creating nuisance and a negative environment in the office. However, there is no such inquiry report and referring to the said report in the notice of retrenchment is totally misplaced, arbitrary and baseless.

¶42

Under such circumstances, the Labour Court did not commit any error in setting aside the order of retrenchment/termination of the respondent and directing reinstatement of the respondent as a daily rated mazdoor with

¶43

8

¶44

effect from July 04, 2022. The arrear wages, including all consequential benefits with interest were rightly directed to be paid.

¶45

However, in my opinion, as the respondent did not work from July 04, 2022 till date, full back wages should not be paid, but I direct payment of 75% of the backwages in three installments along with 6% interest per annum to be calculated from July 04, 2022, till the date of payment of the third installment. As public money is involved the modification of the quantum of arrears is directed.

¶46

The respondent shall be allowed to join her duties with immediate effect on the basis of a server copy of this order. The first instalment towards arrear payment shall be made on November 30, 2025. The second instalment will be paid on January 31, 2026 and the last and final instalment along with interest has to be calculated as per the direction of this Court shall be paid within March 31, 2026. It is made clear that the respondent shall be allowed to discharge her duties and current wages shall also be paid in accordance with her entitlement. Failure to pay as directed, will carry further interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the unpaid amount, from the date(s) due and fixed by Court, till the date of actual payment.

¶47

The order impugned is modified to the above extent.

¶48

Parties to act in terms of the server copy of this order downloaded from the website of this Hon’ble Court.

¶49

( Shampa Sarkar, J. )

The Executive Engineer v. Smti.N.Palayee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Executive Engineer v. Smti.N.Palayee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Ajai Kumar Sonkar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Smti.Kurdulla Minj Vs the Superintending Engineer and Ors.

R Mohan Vs the Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Ors.

Shanti Vs Sri Vijaya Puram Municipal Council and Ors.

The Executive Engineer Vs Smti.Manasi Rani Poddar

Uma Devi Vs Lt.Governor and Ors.