Lakshmi Kanta Hazra and Others vs State of West Bengal and Others

I.P. Mukerji, J.—The Court: Mr. S. Majumdar, learned Advocate for the petitioner, placed in detail the "resolution". dated 14th May, 1998 of the Government of West Bengal, which was published in the Calcutta Gazette on 20th May, 1998. By this policy decision of the Government, the eligible workers in locked out, closed and other industrial units where work had been suspended would be entitled to a cash assistance of Rs. 500/- per month with effect from 1st April, 1998 till the reopening of the unit or till attaining the age of 58 years whichever was earlier. The industrial units would have to be factories and plantations registered under the Factories Act, 1948 and the Plantation Labour Act, 1951 in West Bengal. By a subsequent notification dated 1st March, 2013 this benefit was extended to Budli/Special Budli Workers (not casual and others) who had completed one year of continuous service according to section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. They would be considered as regular workmen.

By another notification described as an "Addendum" dated 4th June 2015 the benefit was extended to a tea garden worker who had not crossed the age of sixty years "on the date of application". Mr. Majumdar attacked this differentiation made between tea garden workers and other workers. Whereas for other workers, the eligibility was till the age of fifty-eight years, for tea garden workers, it was till sixty years of age. No rational criteria existed for making this differentiation between these two classes of workers. They were similarly placed and entitled to similar treatment. The notification of 4th June, 2015 appeared to be discriminatory of other types of workers, Mr. Majumdar submitted.

Although Mr. Roy Chowdhury appearing for the State submitted that there was nothing wrong with this policy decision of the Government, I am of the opinion that Mr. Majumdar is absolutely right in his submission.

There is indeed no plausible reason to treat tea workers and other workers differently. In my opinion, they are similarly placed during lock-out, closure and suspension of work in the respective units. Hence, the State cannot bestow different kinds of benefit to different classes of workers similarly situated. The notification appears to be discriminatory. It violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The Court cannot rewrite the policy of the Government. But it can strike it down on the ground of illegality. -

For the above reasons, the notification dated 4th June, 2015 is declared ultra vires the Constitution of India and quashed with a direction upon the State Government not to take a fresh decision within eight weeks from date on the basis of the observations above. This application is accordingly disposed of.

Certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.