Management of Hukanpukhuri Tea Estate Vs the State of Assam and 14 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010105182016

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/56/2016

¶5

MANAGEMENT OF HUKANPUKHURI TEA ESTATE

¶6

REP. BY ITS MANAGER, HUKANJPUKHURI TEA ESTATE, P.O., P.S. and DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM, PIN-786125.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM and 14 ORS. REP. BY SECY., LABOUR and EMPLOYMENT DEPTT., GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GHY.-781006.

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T GOSWAMI, MR. J BORA,MR R SARMA,MR. P KALITA

¶10

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM R-1,2 and 3, MR. A BHATTACHARJEE (FOR CAVEATOR),MS. P KALITA (FOR CAVEATOR)

¶11

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶12

ORDER

¶13

03.06.2025

¶14

1 . Heard Mr. N. Patir, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mrs. A. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the respondent nos.4 to 7, 9, 10, 12 & 13. No one appears for the respondent nos.8, 11 & 14. Mr. G. Bokalial, learned

¶15

Page No.# 2/5

¶16

Government Advocate appears for the respondent nos.1 to 3.

¶17

2 . The learned counsels for the parties submit that they have made a settlement during the conciliation proceedings before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Tinsukia on 22.02.2022.

¶18

3 . The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though all the respondents have vacated the Tea Garden Official Quarters, Title Suit No.80/2024 and Misc.(J) Case No.130/2024 filed by the respondents in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tinsukia have not been withdrawn by the respondents.

¶19

4 . Mrs. A. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the respondent nos.4 to 7, 9, 10, 12 & 13 agrees with the submission made by the petitioner’s counsel that a settlement has been arrived at between the parties on 22.02.2022 and that nothing remains to be adjudicated in this writ petition. However, the question of withdrawal of Title Suit No.80/2024 and Misc.(J) Case No.130/2024 from the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tinsukia would have to be done by the private respondents, especially the respondent nos.8, 11 & 14, who she does not represent,

¶20

5 . This Court in it’s order dated 04.12.2024 passed in WP(C) 56/2016 had recorded the fact of a settlement having been arrived at between the parties and the consequential result of the settlement that led to the payment of Provident Fund and Gratuity to the private respondents.

¶21

Page No.# 3/5

¶22

6 . The settlement made between the parties on 22.02.2022 before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Tinsukia in I.A(C) 2422/2024 is reproduced hereinbelow as follows :

¶23

“MINUTES OF THE CONCILIATION HELD AT THE OFFICE OF THE ASSTT.LABOUR COMMISSIONER, TINISUKIA BETWEEN THE MANAGEMENT OF HUKANPUKHURI T.E.AND ITS WORKMEN REPRESENTED BY ACKS TINISUKIA BRANCH OVER THE ISSUE OF BACK WAGES AND RETIREMENT BENEFIT ON 22-02-2022

¶24

Parties Present :-

¶25

For Management:-

¶26

Sri Subhasish Deb, Authorised person of Hukanpukhuri T.E. Sri K.Borthakur, Manager Hukanpukhuri T.E.

¶27

For Workmen :-

¶28

Sri Rishav Kalita, General Secy.ACKS Sri J.C. Saikia, Secy.ACKS, Panitola Circle Sri Trilok Kapoor Singh, Retd. Excise Clerk Sri Sadhan Bhattacharjee, Ex.Store Clerk

¶29

Sri Krishna Kanta Nath, Electrician

¶30

Sri Gajendra Nath Boruah, Office Clerk

¶31

Sri Probhash Achary, Ex. 2nd Clerk

¶32

Sri Moni Ram Gogoi, President ACKS Tinisukia

¶33

Sri Amrit Sona, Asstt. Secy. ACKS Paritola

¶34

Short Recital :

¶35

Page No.# 4/5

¶36

6 retired employee of Hukar.pukhuri T.E. have submitted a petition regarding the issue of back wages and retirement benefits which returned back by the Hon'ble High Court for settlement at the Asstt. Labour Commissioner, Tinisukia. Subsequently, conciliation-cum-discussion was fixed by the Asstt. Labour Commissioner, Tinisukia on 22-12-2021 & 0902-2022 for an amicable settlement of the matter. Copy of Order of Hon'ble High Court is attached herewith.

¶37

Minutes :-

¶38

As per discussion earlier the Asstt. Labour Commissioner-cumConciliation Officer requested the Management to provide their opinions regarding the matter-

¶39

As the workmen had not work in the office, hence, they should not be eligible for any wage as they demanded. But as per the provision of Payment of Wages Act, every workman should receive their respective dues.

¶40

The workmen submitted a self-calculated total arrear wages and other dues of Rs.39,09,646.99(Rupees Thirty Nine Lacs Nine Thousand Six Hundred Forty Six and Ninety nine paise) only.

¶41

Initially the Management offered Rs. 14 Lacs as full and final settlement with an increase of Rs. 2 lacs from its original offer, which the Workman did not agreed. The Asstt. Labour Commissioner requested the Management to increase the amount to meet justice to the Workman.

¶42

Finally the Asstt. Labour Commissioner proposed Rs.19 Lacs as full and final settlement before the house to which both the parties agreed to accept.

¶43

"the full and final decision is that the Workmen accepted the proposal of Rs. 19 Lacs only as their dues for the said disputes".

¶44

The management is hereby directed to deposit the said amount within 7 (Seven) days from the issue of this letter i.e. 02-03-2022.

¶45

Page No.# 5/5

¶46

Thus the conciliation concluded with a vote of thanks.”

¶47

7 . In view of the settlement having been made between the parties and as the private respondents have left the official quarters, the petitioner should inform the concerned Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tinsukia in Title Suit No.80/2024 and Misc.(J) Case No.130/2024 that a settlement has been arrived at, which may lead to the closure of Title Suit No.80/2024 and Misc.(J) Case No.130/2024.

¶48

8 . The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶49

JUDGE

¶50

Comparing Assistant

Management of Hukanpukhuri Tea Estate v. the State of Assam and 14 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Management of Hukanpukhuri Tea Estate v. the State of Assam and 14 Ors.

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

Banamali Sarkar Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

M/S. Sonu Enterprise Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

M/S. Klirdap Stone Crusher Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Pragatishil Atmasahayak Got Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Pragatishil Atmasahayak Got Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Mahirul Islam Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.