Dismissed

Assam Sangramai Chah Sramik Sangha v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Gauhati HC14 Sept 2026WP(C)/6573/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition challenging an ex-parte Labour Court award upholding a workman's dismissal. The court found the disciplinary proceeding fair and the tribunal acted legally with re-issuance of notice. However, citing laches and very long delay without reasonable explanation, the court refused interference.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed; relieved of conditions of dismissal is entitled to receive Provident Fund.

Assam Sangramai Chah Sramik Sangha Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2026)

Page No.# 1/10

GAHC010211812018

2026:GAU-AS:13622

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/6573/2018

¶6

ASSAM SANGRAMAI CHAH SRAMIK SANGHA REPRESENTED BY SRI TILAK TOSSA, AGE- 54 YEARS, CENTRAL EXECUTIVE MEMBER OF UNION, DISTRICT- BISWANATH, ASSAM, PIN-

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.

¶9

LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR, DISPUR, GHY-05.

¶10

2:THE MANAGEMENT OF MONABARI TEA ESTATE REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER P.O.- BISWANATH CHARIALI DISTRICT- SONITPUR ASSAM PIN- 784176

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S DAS, MRS. R T DAS,MR. N BORUAH,MS. D BARUAH,MR. H GOGOI

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR S N SARMA SENIOR ADVOCATE (R2),MR. K KALITA (R2),MR. S CHOWDHURY (R2)

¶13

B E F O R E

¶14

Hon’ble MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

¶15

Advocate for the petitioners: Shri S. Das

¶16

Advocates for the respondents : Shri M. Chetia, GA-Assam

¶17

Shri K. Kalita, R.2- Management

¶18

Page No.# 2/10

¶19

Date on which judgment is reserved : 18.08.2026

¶20

Date of pronouncement of judgment: 15.09.2026

¶21

Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment? : NA

¶22

Whether the full judgment has been pronounced? : Yes

¶23

JUDGMENT & ORDER

¶24

The instant writ petition has been instituted under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, putting to challenge an Award dated 15.11.2010 passed by the learned Labour Court, Guwahati in Reference Case No. 11/2018. By the aforesaid Award, the dismissal of the workman who is represented by the petitioner - Sangha has been upheld. The primary ground of challenge is that the Award is an ex-parte one.

¶25

As per facts projected, an incident had occurred on 24.09.2005 with regard to payment of bonus, which had also resulted in police firing. In connection with the said incident, action was initiated against 11 nos. of workers, including the present workman represented by the Sangha. However, the suspension orders of 8 nos. of workers were withdrawn and proceeding was initiated against 3 nos. of workmen. The proceeding culminated in an order dated 05.12.2006 of dismissal from service. It is however contended that out of the 3 nos. of workmen, 2 had submitted resignation and only one workman, namely, Tilok Tosa, remained who has made the present challenge through the Sangha by initiation of a Reference. The issue of Reference is as follows:

¶26

“Whether domestic enquiry held against the workmen was fair or not?”

¶27

Page No.# 3/10

¶28

The contesting parties had submitted written statements. However, it is the case of the petitioner that the Advocate of the workman had expired and this fact was not communicated to the Union. It is also projected that the learned Labour Court did not issue notice after expiry of the Advocate of the Union. It is also contended that though the allegation was of manhandling a manager of the garden, there was no police case lodged. It is also contended that there was violation of the principles of natural justice and the workman was not given a proper opportunity. It is on these broad grounds that the impugned Award has been put to challenge.

¶29

I have heard Shri S. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner - Sangha. I have also heard Shri M. Chetia, learned Government Advocate, Assam and Shri K. Kalita, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 – Management.

¶30

Shri Das, learned counsel for the petitioner – Sangha has submitted that though the allegation in the disciplinary proceeding was of manhandling a manager, there was no police case registered, which makes the entire allegation unbelievable. He has submitted that the petitioner Union had filed written statement and an additional written statement in which all the points were taken up. He has submitted that in the disciplinary proceeding, the workman was not given any defence assistant. He has submitted that the concerned workman has already surpassed the age of superannuation and therefore, the present claim would be confined only to the entitlements.

¶31

By drawing the attention of this Court to the averments made in paragraph 26 of the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the delay in approaching this Court has been explained. He has submitted that the Award has been passed without taking into consideration the relevant factors and the same being ex-parte, the same is required to be interfered with.

¶32

Page No.# 4/10

¶33

In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision in the case of M/s South Assam Roadways Limited Vs. the State of Assam and Ors. reported in 2024 Supreme (Gau) 1549 wherein this Court, after taking into consideration Rule 18 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 in respect of an ex-parte Award had remanded back the matter.

¶34

Per contra, Shri Kalita, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 has, at the outset, submitted that the present case has not been instituted in a fair and correct manner. He has submitted that there is an inordinate delay of 8 years in approaching this Court and this delay has not been explained at all. He has submitted that this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a Court of Equity, wherein a party approaching this Court has to come with clean hands. However, in the instant case, the approach of the petitioner after an inordinate delay of 8 years, without any acceptable reasons, itself would be a factor to dismiss the writ petition.

¶35

On the merits of the case, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 has submitted that it is not a case where the disciplinary proceeding was vitiated by bias or a violation of the principles of natural justice. He has submitted that the records of the case would clearly show that all reasonable opportunities were granted to the workman in the disciplinary proceeding which resulted in the order dated 05.12.2006 of dismissal of service of 3 nos. of workmen. He has denied the submission that the other 2 workmen had submitted resignation. He has also submitted that the records would reveal that the learned Tribunal had fixed the matter on 04.11.2009 as the date for preliminary hearing. He has also submitted that as there was no representation on behalf of the workman, fresh notice was issued to the Union on 28.05.2010.

¶36

Page No.# 5/10

¶37

The learned Tribunal had also satisfied itself regarding service of fresh notice by return of the A/D card on 03.08.2010 and accordingly on 18.08.2010, an order was passed to proceed ex-parte. He accordingly submits that all reasonable opportunities, including fresh notice, was issued to the workman and therefore, the present allegation made on behalf of the petitioner are incorrect and without any basis.

¶38

On the aspect of violation of the principles of natural justice, the learned counsel for the Management has submitted that the workman had participated in the disciplinary proceeding and had even cross examined the Management witnesses and there is a clear finding in this regard. By drawing the attention of this Court to the averments made in paragraph 9 of the writ petition, he has submitted that there is, in fact, an admission that the workman had participated in the disciplinary proceeding. As regards the allegation of bias that the Senior Manager had issued the dismissal order who was also the victim of alleged manhandling, the learned counsel for the Management has submitted that such contention is ex-facie erroneous. By drawing the attention of this Court to the order of dismissal dated 05.12.2006, he has submitted that the same was issued by another officer and only on the aspect of serving the copy, the same was signed by the Senior Manager, who was involved. He has also denied the contention made on behalf of the workman that so far as the other 2 workmen are concerned, there has been a settlement. He has submitted that the dismissal was still effective and statutory dues have been paid to them. He has also submitted that the statutory dues, including the PF, is ready to be disbursed to the present workman who has chosen not to accept the same till now.

¶39

In support of his submissions, Shri Kalita, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

¶40

Page No.# 6/10

¶41

Krishnakali Tea Estate Vs. Akhil Bhartiya Chah Mazdoor Sangha and Anr. reported in (2004) 8 SCC 200 . In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that a situation of unrest created by the workman would be gross misconduct for which the penalty of dismissal would be commensurate. Reliance has also been placed in the case of Muriadih Colliery Vs. Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union reported in (2005) 3 SCC 331 and the subsequent decision of L.K. Verma Vs. HMT Ltd. reported in (2006) 2 SCC 269 in which the earlier law has been endorsed that use of abusive language cannot be held to be disproportionate qua the penalty of dismissal.

¶42

The rival submissions advanced in the Bar have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have been carefully examined.

¶43

The primary ground of challenge of the Award dated 15.11.2010 is that the same is an ex-parte one and no proper opportunity was granted to the petitioner. It is specifically contended that no notice was issued by the learned Tribunal when the Advocate of the workman had passed away during the proceeding. A submission has also been made challenging the validity of the domestic enquiry against the workman by bringing the allegation of bias and violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶44

Let us, at first deal with the 2^nd submission. A perusal of the records of the case as well as the documents placed before this Court would show that the disciplinary proceeding was held by giving all opportunities to the workman. In fact, in paragraph 9 of the writ petition, there is an admission that workman had participated in the disciplinary proceeding. There is also a clear finding in the Award of the learned Tribunal that the workman had participated and even cross examined the Management witnesses. Though, a submission has been made

¶45

Page No.# 7/10

¶46

that no defence assistant was allowed, this Court, on a perusal of the pleadings in the written statement, additional written statement and even in the writ petition, has failed to come across any such projected case. On the contrary, the materials available would show that the workman had participated in the disciplinary proceeding, which culminated in the order dated 05.12.2006 of dismissal from service. The contention advanced that the disciplinary proceeding was bad on the ground of bias is also apparently fallacious. A perusal of the dismissal order dated 05.12.2006, would show that the same was not issued by Shri S. Ghosh, the Senior Manager who was involved in the incident of manhandling, but another Senior Manager. This Court has noticed that though the signature of one S. Ghosh appears, it is only with respect to furnishing of a copy of the order of dismissal upon the workman. This Court is unable to accept the contention that the disciplinary proceeding is vitiated by bias.

¶47

As regards the aspect that the learned Tribunal had acted unreasonably by proceeding with the matter when the advocate of the workman had passed away. This Court, upon perusal of the records, is of the opinion that such contention cannot be countenanced. The records, more particularly, pages 6 and 7 would show that a date for preliminary hearing was fixed on 04.11.2009 and subsequently, on 28.05.2010 as none had appeared for the workman, fresh notices were issued to the Union. The learned Tribunal had come to a satisfaction that the notice was indeed served as the A/D card had returned after service and this fact has been recorded in the order dated 03.08.2010. As there was still no representation, the learned Tribunal had passed an order dated 18.08.2010 to proceed ex-parte and finally, the impugned Award has been passed on 15.11.2010. Under those circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Tribunal had acted in accordance with law and had

¶48

Page No.# 8/10

¶49

given full opportunity to the workman, as non-appearance of the Advocate was taken into consideration and fresh notices were issued.

¶50

Reliance upon the case of M/s South Assam Roadways Limited (supra) would be of no avail to the petitioner inasmuch as, the facts are wholly distinguishable. In the said case, there was absence of service report for which it could not be concluded that the notices were indeed served. However, in the instant case, not only the Reference was initially contested, on absence of the learned counsel for the petitioner, fresh notice was issued which was also duly served, even after which, the petitioner did not take steps to engage a new counsel.

¶51

This Court is also intrigued by the aspect that the Award, which was passed on 15.11.2010 came to be challenged after a long period of 8 years. It is not the case of the petitioner that they were not aware of the Award and the only explanation comes in paragraph 26 of the writ petition, which are as follows:

¶52

“26. That, the workmen approached the Management again after the Award of Learned Labour Court with a prayer to review his case and allow him to continue his service. The local Management of the garden assured him to discuss the matter with the higher Management and allowed him to stay in the quarter along with his other members of the family. The workman was waiting with a hope for a positive response of the Management, but, the local management of the garden delayed the matter on various pretexts and now pressurizing the workman to vacate the quarter. Therefore, the workman decided to the challenge the ex-parte order dated 15-11-0 and approached the Union (Assam Sangrami Chah Sramik Sangha) to prefer a writ Petition. In this way a considerable delay

¶53

Page No.# 9/10

¶54

has been caused to prefer this Writ Petition. Considering the backwardness and poor conditions of the workman and also as there is no specific limitation period in the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, the instant Writ Petition may be admitted and after hearing the parties appropriate order may be passed for the ends of justice.”

¶55

The aforesaid explanation, in the considered opinion of this Court, would not constitute reasonable explanation, as the delay is an inordinate and long one of 8 years. This Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a Court of Equity, wherein the conduct of the party approaching this Court is of paramount importance. The delay, without any reasonable explanation, would also be a factor which would play a significant role in the adjudication process. Though a Writ Court is not strictly bound by the Limitation Act, 1963, the aspect of laches would definitely come in. A Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of MP Vs. Bhailal Bhai reported in AIR 1964 SC 1006 has laid down as follows:

¶56

“ 21. … Learned counsel is right in his submission that the provisions of the Limitation Act do not as such apply to the granting of relief under Art 226. It appears to us however that the maximum period fixed by the legislature as the time within which the relief by a suit in a Civil Court must be brought may ordinarily be taken to be a reasonable standard by which delay in seeking remedy under Article 226 can be measured. The court may consider the delay unreasonable even if it is less than the period of limitation prescribed for a civil action for the remedy but where the delay is more than this period, it will almost always be proper for the court to hold that it is unreasonable. …”

¶57

Page No.# 10/10

¶58

The delay of 8 years in approaching this Court would be of significant importance, inasmuch as, in the meantime, sufficient development had taken place. As submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the workman has already surpassed the age of supervision and therefore, the aspect of interfering with the order of dismissal and the consequent Award dated 15.11.2010, upholding the dismissal may not arise.

¶59

The learned counsel for the Management has clearly submitted that the concerned workman would be entitled to the Provident Fund, which is lying with them.

¶60

This Court is of the opinion that the certiorari jurisdiction exercised by this Court would only look into the decision-making process and in the instant case, the decision-making process appears to be just reasonable and fair. This Court is of the opinion that no case for interference is made out and accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶61