The Management of Mahadeobari Tea Estate Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/7

¶2

GAHC010001392021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/64/2021

¶5

THE MANAGEMENT OF MAHADEOBARI TEA ESTATE

¶6

A CONCERN OF MAHADEOBARI TEA COMPANY PVT. LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT A.T. ROAD, MAKUM, P.O. MAKUM JUNCTION, DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM, PIN 786170, BEING REPRESENTED BY ITS CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY, NAMELY, SRI MUKUL KUMAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, SON OF LT. NARAYAN PRASAD SINGH, R/O MAHADEOBARI T.E., P.O. HOOGRIJAN, DIST. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN 786601

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS

¶9

REPRESENTED BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 781006

¶10

2:Respondent No. 2 has been struck off .as per order dated 07/01/2021

¶11

3:THE ASSAM CHAH KARMACHARI SANGHA

¶12

TINGRI CIRCLE P.O. HOOGRIJAN DIST. DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN 786601 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECY

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B. DUTTA, MS. J BORO,MR. S DEKA

¶14

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR. P KALITA (R-3)

¶15

Page No.# 2/7

¶16

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶17

ORDER

¶18

09.06.2025

¶19

Heard Mr. B. Dutta, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner assisted by Mr. S. Deka. Also heard Mr. R. Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Mrs. A. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.

¶20

The Award dated 10.07.2020, passed by the learned Labour Court, Dibrugarh in Reference Case No.05/2018 has been put to challenge in the present case.

¶21

The petitioner’s case is that it is a Tea Estate providing free unlimited electricity supply to it’s employees. However, due to efflux of time and with development, the employees of the Tea Estate, who had only been initially using lights and fans in their homes, have now started using various electronic devices, including air conditioners in their houses. This has led to high consumption of free electricity, which has subsequently resulted in high electricity bills, which is payable by the Tea Estate.

¶22

The learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the electricity connection that has been provided to the Tea Estate is based on commercial charges and as such, the Tea Estate has decided to restrict the benefit of providing free unlimited electricity to its’ various staff as follows:-

¶23

(1) Senior staff - 50 units per month

¶24

(2) Junior staff - 40 units per month

¶25

(3) Technical staff - 30 units per month

¶26

Page No.# 3/7

¶27

With a view to implement the use of free limited electricity supply to it’s employees, the petitioner issued a Notice under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), informing it’s employees the limited free electricity to be supplied, in terms of Sl. No.8 to Schedule-4 of the Act.

¶28

The petitioner Tea Estate thereafter implemented the grant of free limited electricity supply to it’s employees in terms of it’s notice issued under Section 9A of the Act, which was then put to challenge by the respondent No.3 before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Dibrugarh. The conciliation proceedings with regard to the same ended in failure, inasmuch as, the respondent No.3 wanted to continue to be provided with free unlimited electricity supply. Thereafter, the dispute was sent by the Government to the Labour Court, wherein the following issues were to be decided-

¶29

i) Whether the Management is justified in deducting the charges for excess of free electricity units from the salaries of the staffs/employees without obtaining their written consent?

¶30

ii) Whether the employees (staffs) are eligible to enjoy unlimited free electricity. If not, what will be the reasonable units allowable to the employees (staffs) ?

¶31

The learned Labour Court, Dibrugarh recorded the evidence of the witnesses of the parties and in respect of the Issue No.1, held, vide Award dated 10.07.2020 in Reference Case No.05/2018, that the Notice under Section 9A of the Act, which was issued by the petitioner, was not a valid notice, as only

¶32

Page No.# 4/7

¶33

9 days had been given for making a reply to the same, which was contrary to the 21 days to be provided to the respondents in terms of Section 9A of the Act.

¶34

In relation to Issue No.2, the learned Labour Court held that based on documentary and oral evidence, the staffs/employees of the writ petitioner could not be allowed to continue the use free electricity without any limit, till the issue was settled through agreement between the Management and workmen. The learned Labour Court thereafter held as follows:-

¶35

“Considering the circumstances of the case, I hold that the staff employees of the Estate is entitled to free supply of electricity as belowUp to the 110 units per month to the senior staff

¶36

Up to the 100 units per month to the Junior staff,

¶37

Up to the 90 units per month to the Tech. staff.

¶38

It may be mentioned further that the management will be entitled to recover the cost of excess consumption of electricity beyond aforesaid limit at the rate of domestic charges fixed by the Electricity Board. However the parties are at liberty to alter the above limits of free units of electricity by way of Industry wise agreement/settlement. This issue is decided accordingly.”

¶39

The petitioner Tea Estate being aggrieved with the Award dated 10.07.2020, passed by the learned Labour Court, Dibrugarh in Reference Case No.05/2018, has thus approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.

¶40

The petitioner’s counsel submits that he has no issue/quarrel with the finding and decision of the learned Labour Court with regard to the Issue No.1, inasmuch as, the Notice under Section 9A of the Act issued by the petitioner, was not in consonance with the requirement of giving 21 days’ time, as only 9

¶41

Page No.# 5/7

¶42

days’ time had been given to the respondent no.3. However, the direction of the learned Labour Court with regard to the entitlement of free electricity supply had not been made on the basis of any evidence, study or findings.

¶43

Mrs. A. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 fairly submits that the direction passed by the learned Labour Court with regard to the entitlement of free supply of electricity for the employees of the Tea Estate, was not made on the basis of any evidence or study made by competent persons.

¶44

I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶45

The Notice under Section 9A of the Act issued by the petitioner not having provided 21 days to the respondents to make a reply, is not sustainable in law and as such, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the finding of the learned Labour Court with regard to Issue No.1.

¶46

The next issue to be decided is as to whether the employees were eligible to enjoy unlimited free electricity or whether they should be allowed limited free electricity. The learned Labour Court has held that the employees of the Tea Estate cannot be allowed to continue to use free electricity without any limit, till the issue was settled through agreement between the Management and workmen. However, the learned Labour Court in the same breath, has held that the employees are entitled to free supply of electricity as follows:-

¶47

Senior staff - 110 units per month

¶48

Junior staff - 100 units per month

¶49

Technical Staff - 90 units per month

¶50

Page No.# 6/7

¶51

The direction passed by the learned Labour Court with regard to the entitlement of free electricity is not justified, as there is no evidence adduced as to the units that is generally consumed by the employees of the Tea Estate. There is no discussion by the learned Labour Court with regard to how many light bulbs, tube lights, plug points for charging, fridge, TV etc. are being used by a normal household belonging to the 3 categories of staff, to have enabled the learned Labour Court to decide the average electricity units being consumed by the 3 categories of households. Further, there could be instances of use of air conditioners and cooking equipments, which also use electricity, besides the use of geysers.

¶52

Without there being any study being made or evidence adduced by a competent body of persons, with regard to the average use of electricity units for the 3 categories of employees and as to the limit of free electricity that could reasonably be provided, this Court finds that the direction passed by the learned Labour Court with regard to the entitlement of free supply of electricity for the 3 categories of employees is without any basis and is thus perverse. As stated earlier, there is no evidence adduced on the basis of which the learned Labour Court could have decided the limit of units of free electricity that could be used by any of the 3 categories of employees. This Court is accordingly of the view that the impugned Award dated 10.07.2020, passed by the learned Labour Court, Dibrugarh in Reference Case No.05/2018 should be set aside and the matter remanded back to the learned Labour Court to decide the issue afresh. The same would enable the learned Labour Court to adduce evidence afresh and allow a study to be made by a competent body of persons, with regard to the number of electricity units that were being used earlier by the employees, compared with the present use of electricity units by the employees.

¶53

Page No.# 7/7

¶54

In view of the reasons stated above, the Award dated 10.07.2020, passed by the learned Labour Court, Dibrugarh in Reference Case No.05/2018 is hereby set aside. The case is remanded back to the learned Labour Court, Dibrugarh, to take a fresh decision, after causing a study to be made by a competent body of individuals, as to the limit of free electricity units that could reasonably be provided by the petitioner to it’s employees. The learned Tribunal should also take into consideration other materials produced by the parties, which would be relevant for taking a decision with regard to the free electricity limit that can be provided by the writ petitioner. It is hoped that the learned Labour Court disposes of the matter expeditiously and preferably within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The above being said, the parties are also at liberty to come to an agreement of settlement.

¶55

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶56

JUDGE

¶57

Comparing Assistant

The Management of Mahadeobari Tea Estate v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Management of Mahadeobari Tea Estate v. the State of Assam and 2 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

M/S. Bishnu Pada Paul and Anr. Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

M/S. Anu Enterprise and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

M/S Binit Industries Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

M/S Bogidhola Tea and Trading Co. (P) Company Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Lakhi Prasad Gogoi Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Rubul Ali Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors.