State of West Bengal vs Lakshmi Kanta Hazra

Heard Mr. Pranab Datta, learned senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Naba Kumar Das, Learned Advocate, for the appellants-State and Mr. Soumya Majumder, learned Advocate, assisted by Tridip Chakraborty and Mr. Victor Chatterjee, learned Advocates for the respondents.

On going through the application and after hearing the learned Advocate for the appellants, we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay of about 272 days in filing the appeal. The delay is condoned.

The brief history of the case is that the respondents/writ petitioners had challenged the Scheme for Financial Assistance to the workers in Locked Out Industrial Units published by the Government of West Bengal in the Calcutta Gazette dated 20th May, 1998 read with the Addendum to the aforesaid Scheme for Financial Assistance to the workers in Locked Out Industrial Units published by the Government of West Bengal in the Calcutta Gazette dated 4th June, 2015. The writ petition being WP No. 1109 of 2015 (Lakshmi Kanta & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr.)was affirmed on 4th September, 2015. The writ petition was heard by the learned Single Judge and allowed by the order and judgment dated September 15, 2015, which was subsequently corrected by the order dated 13th January, 2016. While allowing the writ petition His Lordship held as follows:-

"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."

Subsequently, the corrected order dated 13th January, 2016 reads as follows:-

"The order dated 15th September 2015 in WP No.1109 of 2015 is corrected by deleting the word "not" in the first line of the third page of the signed order so as to read as "direction upon the State Government to take a fresh decision" in place of "direction upon the State Government not to take a fresh decision". Let the correction be incorporated in the said order dated 15th September, 2015.

The decision by the State Government may be taken within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order."

The appellants have assailed the aforesaid order and judgment impugned on the ground that the State correctly awarded benefits to different classes of workers who are similarly situated.

In Industrial Units registered under the Factories Act, 1948 and in the Plantations Labour Act, 1951 working conditions of workers are absolutely different in nature. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge has committed an illegality in declaring the Notification dated 4th June, 2015 as ultra vires to the Constitution of India, since the Government of West Bengal has taken a reasoned policy decision. The Government had inserted a new clause (Clause No. vi.) under sub-para 3.1 of para 3 under the heading `Eligibility of Workers'' in the said "Scheme for Financial Assistance to the Workers in Locked-Out Industrial Units (FAWLOI)" which was published in the Calcutta Gazette Extraordinary dated 20.5.1998.

Mr. Dutta, learned senior Counsel for the appellants, has placed before us the resolution dated 14.5.1998 on the subject scheme for financial assistance to the workers in locked out, closed and other industrial units. The relevant extract relied upon by the learned Counsel for the State reads as follows:-

"3. Eligibility of Workers: On approval of the industrial unit(s) by the Committee the Labour Directorate will issue notice(s) to this effect. On issue of the notice(s) by the directorate, the workers of the approved unit(s) become eligible to be covered under the scheme.

(v) The worker has not crossed 58 years of age on the date of application."

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly noted the fact that the workers of industrial units and the workers of the plantations registered under the Factories Act, 1948 and the Plantations Labour Act, 1951 respectively have been discriminated by the Addendum dated June 10, 2015 by which Tea Garden Workers who had not crossed sixty years of age on the date of application have been provided financial relief for two years. This differentiation is without any reasonable basis since the eligibility criteria is 58 years of age for receiving financial benefits in respect of workers in other units covered by the notification dated 20th May, 1998. No rational criterion exists for making this differentiation between these two classes of workers since they are similarly placed and entitled to similar treatment.

Learned Counsel for the appellants-State submits that the learned Single Judge failed to consider that Tea Plantation workers do not have many alternative employment opportunities when the tea gardens are locked out compared to workers of other closed units. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the factual matrix of the matter. The learned Single Judge has also erred in law and misdirected himself while dealing with the writ petition at the "Court Application Stage" without calling for affidavits, denying the appellants an opportunity to place their case on affidavit,which is in violation of the principles of natural justice.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and after perusing the materials on record, we are of the opinion that the learned Counsel for the appellants could not make out a case for interference with the order impugned since, on the face of the record, equals have been treated as unequals without a justifiable reason for segregating tea garden workers for extending the financial benefits up to the age of 60 years.

It appears from the second paragraph of the Calcutta Gazette Extraordinary dated 20th May, 1998 that it was to be extended to the workers of all closed industrial units. However, by laying down the salient feature of scheme in clause-1, which reads as follows:-

"1.(i)The industrial units should be factories and plantations registered under the Factories Act, 1948 and the Plantation Labour Act, 1951 in West Bengal."

Even assuming that in the aforesaid clause only the Tea Gardens workers are included through the Addendum (supra), such inclusion becomes arbitrary and discriminatory as it excludes any other workers of closed or locked-out industries who were less than 60 years of age as on June 10, 2015. No reason is assigned in the grounds of appeal or to be found in the Gazette Notification dated 10th June, 2015, as to why only the workers of Tea Gardens would get the financial assistance up to the age of 60 years.

The other contentions of the learned Counsel for the Appellants-State that the learned Trial Judge has decided the case on merits without exchange of affidavits and without hearing the State does not appear to be correct. It may be noted that the writ petition was served after giving notice to the State and the State was represented through its learned Counsel whose names appear in the order of the learned Single Judge dated 15th September, 2015. Even otherwise, today we have given a prolonged hearing to the learned Counsel for the Appellants-State to place their case. The learned Counsel for the Appellants-State has placed before us the definition of factory under the Factories Act as defined in Sections 2(k)or 2(m).

However, apart from the reasons given by the learned Single Judge, we have quoted above the relevant Rules from the respective notification which do not support the appellants'' case. No reasons are found as to why a Tea Garden worker must be differently treated under the notification dated 20th May, 1998 read with its Addendum dated 10th June, 2015.

With the above observations, the appeal and the stay application stand dismissed.