Allowed

Asom Rashtrabhasa Prachar Samity Karmi Sabha v. the Management of Asom Rashtrabhasa Prachar Samity and Anr.

Gauhati HC7 Mar 2019WP(C)/6333/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a Labour Court award that justified industry closure because workmen accepted compensation without objection. The High Court held that prior rulings established such acceptance is without prejudice to workers' rights, remanding the matter for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

The impugned award dated 24.01.2017 was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Labour Court for fresh consideration.

Asom Rashtrabhasa Prachar Samity Karmi Sabha… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010044842017

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 6333/2017

¶5

1:ASOM RASHTRABHASA PRACHAR SAMITY KARMI SABHA

¶6

A TRADE UNION REGD UNDER TRADE UNION ACT, REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY MD. ANISUDDIN HAZARIKA

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE MANAGEMENT OF ASOM RASHTRABHASA PRACHAR SAMITY and ANR.

¶9

RUPNAGAR, GUWAHATI- 781032

¶10

2:THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT ASSAM GUWAHATI- 78100

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A JAHID

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. L P SHARMA (R1)

¶13

Page No.# 2/5

¶14

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. KOTISWAR SINGH

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Date : 07-03-2019

¶17

Heard Mr. S. N. Sarma, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. K. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. L. P. Sharma, senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. Thakuria, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶18

In this petition the petitioner has challenged the award dated 24.01.2017 passed by the learned labour Court, Assam at Guwahati arising out of Reference Case No. 06/2008. The operative portion reads as follows:

¶19

“Section 25 FFF mandate that at the time of closure of an industry workman shall be entitled to notice and compensation in accordance with provision of Sec.25F. In the instant case printing press unit under the management was closed down due to continuous loss and paucity of fund and after closure of the unit the employees were given closure compensation and the employees have received the same without objection. In such circumstances I hold that the management is justified closing down the printing press and retrenching against the workman.”

¶20

1. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid finding is contrary to the observation and decision of this High Court in a case preceding the proceeding before the Labour Court referred to above.

¶21

1. Before the matter went to Labour Court, the petitioner herein had challenged the notice, conveying the decision of the Management to close the press, which was also issue before the Tribunal by filing a writ petition, being WP (C) 4766/2005.

¶22

1. This Court disposed of the said WP (C) 4766/2005 on 03.10.2007 with the observation and direction that the petitioner will approach the authorities for making a reference in view of the dispute which had arisen under the Industrial Disputes Act.

¶23

Page No.# 3/5

¶24

While disposing the said writ petition, this Court, taking into consideration the submission made on behalf of the Management that the Management had made arrangements for payment to the workmen, made it clear that acceptance of any amount, which was sought to be paid by the Management will be without any prejudice to the rights available to the workmen under the relevant provisions of law.

¶25

In other words, even if the workmen represented by the petitioner had accepted the amount from the Management on account of the closer of the press, it was not to be considered without any objection and without prejudice to the rights as available to the workers under the law.

¶26

However, as mentioned above in the award, the learned Presiding Officer gave the finding and come to the conclusion with reference to Section 225 FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, that since the employees were given closure compensation, and they had received the same without objection, the Management was justified in closing down the printing press and retrenching the workmen. It may be noted that the terms of reference which were to be decided by Labour Court were as follows:

¶27

“(i) Whether the management is justified closing down the printing press of retrenching the workmen such as Shri (1) Kiran Mahanta (2) Dharanidhar Kalita (3) Liladhar Goswami (4) Biren Das (5) Suren Talukdar (6) Hasmat Ali (7) Gadadhar Dutta (8) Anisuddin Hazarika (9) Sailen Sarma (10) Thaneswar Sarma (11) Lallon Ojha and (12) Shri Kamal Ch. Mishra ?

¶28

(ii) Whether the management is justified not following the principle of closing down the printing press and retrenchment against the workmen? (iii) If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to?”

¶29

Though the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court had held that Management was justified in closing down the printing press and retrenching the workmen, the same was arrived at on the basis that the workmen had received closure compensation without objection, thus waiving their rights to contest the validity of the notice.

¶30

Page No.# 4/5

¶31

This Court is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Labour Court solely on the ground that employees had received the compensation amount without objection, cannot be held to be the correct approach, in view of the fact that, this Court in the aforesaid writ petition had made it very clear that receipt of any compensation amount will be without prejudice to the rights of the workmen under the Act.

¶32

Since it has been reiterated by the learned senior counsel on behalf of the petitioner that the workmen had received under protest and without prejudice to the rights as also noted by this Court, that cannot be the reason for the conclusion arrived at by the labour Court.

¶33

Learned counsel for the respondent has however, strenuously argued and endeavoured to justify the conclusion of the Presiding Officer.

¶34

However, this Court is not inclined to accept the submission advanced by the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent. This Court on the earlier occasion had made it clear that the workmen would be entitled to receive the amount without prejudice to the claim of the workmen, and as such, this Court would require the Labour Court to re-examine the matter afresh by not taking into account the acceptance of closer compensation by the employees but on its own merit, based on the other materials already available before the Labour Court.

¶35

It has been also noted that since the Labour Court had came to the conclusion on the basis of the factum that the workmen had accepted closure compensation without objection and accordingly, held the action of the Management to be justified, if adducing of evidence is required for deciding the other terms of reference, the parties may adduce the evidence before the Labour Court. Thereafter, the Labour Court will proceed with the same in accordance with the law, without being influenced by the fact that the workmen had accepted the compensation amount offered by the Management but based on other materials/evidences on record/ that may be adduced.

¶36

Page No.# 5/5

¶37

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned award dated 24.01.2017 and matter is remitted to the Labour Court for fresh consideration as observed above.

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

Comparing Assistant

Asom Rashtrabhasa Prachar Samity Karmi Sabha v. the Management of Asom Rashtrabhasa Prachar Samity and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asom Rashtrabhasa Prachar Samity Karmi Sabha v. the Management of Asom Rashtrabhasa Prachar Samity and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md. Muhib Ali Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Mazida Khatun Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Smti. Arpana Sarkar Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Ruhul Amin Mazumder Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Anil Kumar Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Md. Sofiqul Islam Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.