Sri Amal Majumder vs The State Of Tripura
2022 Latest Caselaw 522 Tri

                                    Page 1 of 4


                       HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                          A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A
                            WP(C) No. 787 of 2020

1.    Sri Amal Majumder, son of late Sukhlal Majumder, resident of
      Ramnagar Road No.4, Agartala, District: West Tripura, Pin-799002.
2.    Smt. Laxmi Rani Dey, daughter of late Harendra Kumar Dey,
      resident of South Badharghat, Siddhi Ashram, Agartala, District:
      West Tripura, Pin-799003.
3.    Sri Srinibash Sinha, son of late Binod Biheri Sinha, resident of
      South Champamura, District: Sepahijala Tripura.
4.    Sri Sambhu Bikash Das, son of late Mohit Ranjan Das, resident of
      Old Kalibari Lane, Krishnanagar, Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-
      799001.

                                                               .....Petitioners

                                 -V E R S U S-

1.    The State of Tripura, represented by the Secretary to the Govt. of
      Tripura, Department of Industries & Commerce, Govt. of Tripura,
      P.O. Agartala, District: Tripura (West).

2.    Directorate of Industries, Govt. of Tripura, Kunjaban, Pin-799006,
      District: West Tripura.
                                                        ..... Respondenst.

                         B_E_F_O_R_E
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD

For Petitioner(s)            :      Mrs. S. Deb (Gupta), Advocate.
For Respondent(s)            :      Mr. N. Majumder, Advocate.

Date of hearing and delivery of judgment and order : 19.05.2022 Whether fit for reporting : YES/NO

JUDGMENT & ORDER [ORAL]

Heard Mrs. S. Deb (Gupta), learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. N. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

[2] The brief facts of this present case are that, the petitioners were joined in the Badharghat Reeling Unit as piece rated worker after completion

of six months of training. On 02.08.2003, the petitioners and the like others made several representations for regularization of their services. On 09.03.1978 a committee meeting was held for smooth functioning of the model carpenter and black smithy, Hawaibari, Teliamura and by the said meeting the piece rated workers were present. On 21.08.1979, the other piece rated workers absorbed as the Industrial workers. The petitioners made several representations for regularization of their service as the similarly situated piece rated workers were regularized on 21.08.1979. The Hon'ble High Court on 21.02.2017 passed a common judgment by giving direction to the respondents to consider those similarly situated petitioners to regularize their services. Being aggrieved by the arbitrary action of the respondents, the present petitioners have filed this writ petition.

[3] Mrs. S. Deb (Gupta), learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners on 01.08.1998 joined the Badharghat Reeling Unit as piece rated worker. The petitioners were engaged as Piece rated workers at the Reeling Unit, Badharghat on 01.08.1998 after completion of six months of training from 18.12.1997. The petitioners and like others, made several representations for regularization of their services. On 02.08.2003, the petitioners and like others made a representation for regularization of their services. She has further submitted that on 07.05.2010 the respondent No.2 issued a memorandum for wages of reelers and twisters in the reeling unit.

[4] On 13.11.2017, the petitioners and similarly situated persons made a common representation to the respondent No.1 for regularizing their work as they are working as DRW and they have experience of work at about 25-30 years. But, on 21.05.2010 the respondent No.2 issued one memorandum for revision of wages to the petitioners and other similarly situated persons. Thereafter, on 27.09.2019 the respondent No.2 issued a letter to the In-charge reeling and twisting unit, Badharghat/Udaipur & Santirbazar, West Tripura/Gomati District & South Tripura for submitting the documents of proof of engagement as casual labour, proof of education qualification

certificate and proof of death and birth of the petitioners and others like the petitioners.

[5] Mrs. Deb Gupta, learned counsel has contended that the petitioners and others like the petitioners are getting wages as daily rated worker since 2002 and they are working eight hours since their joining. It is mentioned that the petitioners and others like the petitioners also getting dearness allowance as per the State Govt. norms. On 09.03.1978 a committee meeting was held for smooth functioning of the model carpenter and black smithy, Hawaibari, Teliamura by the said meeting the piece rated workers were present. On 21.08.1979 the similarly situated piece rated workers were absorbed as the Industrial Worker by order No. F.DI/ESTT/1 (36)/79 dated 21.08.1979. It is evident from the meeting dated 09.03.1978, the aforesaid persons were also present as piece rated workers.

[6] She has categorically averred that from the minutes of the meeting dated 11.08.1997 of Director of Industries & Commerce, Tripura that a proposal for ad-hoc appointment of 7 nos. piece rated workers (petitioners herein) on ad-hoc basis working at MC Unit, Udaipur and Howaibari. On 06.03.2020 the petitioners and like others sent a letter for regularization as Gropu-D under Handloom, Handicraft & Sericulture Department. Several other piece rated workers under the respondent No.1 filed writ petitions before this Court and this Court on 21.02.2017 passed a common judgment (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) directing the respondents to consider those petitioners to regularize their services.

[7] She has submitted that after passing the judgment, the respondent No.1 regularized the services of those petitioners by issuing a memorandum dated 06.01.2018 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition). The Finance Department, Govt. of Tripura issued a memorandum for counting of service of contingent/DRW/Casual Workers towards pension etc. Mrs. Deb (Gupta), learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has further argued that the respondents have no reason whatsoever for not absorbing the petitioners and said others piece rated workers as Group-D employee. Though, other similarly

situated piece rated workers except the petitioners and others like the petitioners were absorbed as Group-D employee. Only to trust the legitimate expectation of the petitioners the respondents have acted arbitrarily and such action of the respondents definitely offends the Ariticle-14 of the Constitution of India as the petitioners have been treated with hesitate.

[8] It appears that their representations are pending before the respondent authority seeking regularization of their services. Since the same has not been considered by the respondent authority, the present petitioners have approached before this Court.

[9] As such, without expressing any opinion onto the merits of the present petition, this Court inclined to disposed of this writ petition directing the concerned authorities to consider the representations of the petitioners expeditiously in reference to other similarly situated employees and pass orders in accordance with law in two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

[10] In terms of the above discussions, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

JUDGE

A.Ghosh