Luxmi Tea Company Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Heard Mr. S. Chakraborty, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and Mrs. S. Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of the Respondent No.2.

¶18

The present writ proceedings has been filed challenging the Award dated 18.06.2018 passed in Reference Case No.3/2017 whereby the learned Labour Court, Assam at Dibrugarh had disposed of the Reference by holding inter alia that the issue is partly decided in favour of the Union and partly against the Management.

¶19

The record reveals that a Notification was issued by the Government of Assam under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 dated 18.03.2017 by making the following reference:-

¶20

“(i) Whether the Management of Lepetkata Tea Estate is justified in denying the employment facility to sons/daughters of retired staff employees, which has been the long standing existing benefit, by unilaterally raising the level of Educational Qualification of the candidates.”

¶21

This Court has duly perused the Award dated 18.06.2018 and it shocks and surprises this Court to take note of that the learned

¶22

Page No.# 3/5

¶23

Labour Court, after recording the pleadings, the evidence adduced by the parties as well as the arguments up to paragraph No.36 of the Award passed the following observations at paragraph Nos.37 & 38 which is reproduced herein under:-

¶24

I have carefully sifted the evidence on record and considering the submission of the ld. representatives of both sides, keeping view of all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the management policy can be changed from time to time but there should be consensus between the management and the union. Accordingly the issue No.1 is partly decided in favour of the union and partly against the management.

¶25

Accordingly the award is given finally on this the 18^th day of June, 2018.

¶26

Let the award be sent to the Govt. of Assam for doing the needful. Given under my hand and seal of this court on this the 18^th day of June, 2018.”

¶27

The manner in which the learned Labour Court, Dibrugarh has decided the said Reference is not only perfunctory, but also goes against the well settled principles in as much as it does not contain any reasons or even a decision. It was the obligation cast upon the learned Labour Court to answer the Reference made by the Government vide the Notification dated 18.03.2017 and not to dispose of the Reference in the manner in which it was done.

¶28

Page No.# 4/5

¶29

Consequently, it is the opinion of this Court that the impugned Award is required to be set aside and appropriate directions be issued to the learned Labour Court, Dibrugarh to decide Reference Case No.3/2017 on the basis of the evidence by giving due reasons and answering the Reference.

¶30

Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions:

¶31

(i) The impugned Award dated 18.06.2018 passed in Reference Case No.3/2017 is set aside and quashed.

¶32

(ii) The learned Labour Court, Dibrugarh is directed to decide the Reference by answering the terms of Reference as notified in the Notification dated 18.03.2017.

¶33

(iii) It has been submitted at the Bar by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties that there would be no necessity of adducing any further evidence. It is the opinion of this Court that there would however be a necessity for making arguments so that the learned Labour Court could decide the Reference. The parties herein are directed to appear before the learned Labour Court, Dibrugarh on 27.06.2026.

¶34

(iv) The learned Labour Court, Dibrugarh shall upon appearance of the parties, fix a date for hearing of

¶35

Page No.# 5/5

¶36

arguments in the Reference proceedings and thereupon decide the Reference as directed above within a period preferably within three months, from the date of appearance of the parties.

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

Comparing Assistant

Luxmi Tea Company Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Luxmi Tea Company Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. the State of Assam and Anr.

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

MD Tousif Hussain Reza Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Dhrubajit Baishya Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Charu Engineering Industries and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

M/S Gauripur Coop Fishery Society Ltd. Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

The Workmen of Borajan Tea Estate Vs the Management of Borajan T.E. and Anr.

Management of Hotel Rajmahal Vs Hitram Rajbonshi and Anr.