Tripura High Court
Smt. Dipti Sarkar (Das) vs The State Of Tripura on 19 May, 2022
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A
WP(C) No. 789 of 2020
1. Smt. Dipti Sarkar (Das), wife of Ratan Das, resident of Siddhi
Ashram, Badharghat, Agartala, District: West Tripura, Pin-799003.
.....Petitioner
-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
petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents.
[2] The brief facts of this present case are that, the petitioner was
joined in the Badharghat Reeling Unit as piece rated worker after completion
of six months of training. On 02.08.2003, the petitioner 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 petitioner 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 petitioner has filed this
writ petition.
[3] Mrs. S. Deb (Gupta), learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
has submitted that the petitioner on 06.11.1998 joined the Badharghat Reeling
Unit as piece rated worker. The petitioner was engaged as Piece rated workers
at the Reeling Unit, Badharghat on 01.08.1998 after completion of six months
of training from 18.12.1999. The petitioner and like others, made several
representations for regularization of their services. On 02.08.2003, the
petitioner 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 petitioner 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 petitioner 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 petitioner and others like the
petitioners.
[5] Mrs. Deb Gupta, learned counsel has contended that the
petitioner 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 petitioner 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 (petitioner
herein) on ad-hoc basis working at MC Unit, Udaipur and Howaibari. On
06.03.2020 the petitioner 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 petitioner has further argued that the
respondents have no reason whatsoever for not absorbing the petitioner and
said others piece rated workers as Group-D employee. Though, other similarly
situated piece rated workers except the petitioner and others like the petitioners
were absorbed as Group-D employee. Only to trust the legitimate expectation
of the petitioner the respondents have acted arbitrarily and such action of the
respondents definitely offends the Ariticle-14 of the Constitution of India as
the petitioner has 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 petitioner
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 petitioner
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
