Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010037412023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1460/2023 M/S KHANDEWAL SAW MILLS PVT LTD PARLI, PALASBARI, KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN- 781128, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI BHAWESH MITTAL. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY, LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06, ASSAM . 2:RAMESHWAR KALITA C/O- DR. GIRISH HANDIQUE NEAR IVENTURE ACADEMY BORDOLOI NAGAR TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN- 786125 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S C KEYAL, Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, AMICUS CURIAE,MR. S CHAKRABORTY B E F O R E Hon’ble MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI Page No.# 2/6 Advocates for the petitioner: Shri S.C. Keyal, Senior Advocate Advocates for the respondents: Shri S. Chakraborty, Amicus Date of hearing and Judgment : 28.07.2026 Judgment & Order (oral) The instant application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been instituted putting to challenge an Award dated 28.07.2022 passed by the learned Labour Court, Guwahati in Case No. 1/2021. By the said Award, the petitioner - Management has been directed to pay full wages for the period from 01.05.2019 to 17.05.2019 and two months’ salary to the respondent no. 2 - Workman. It has also been clarified that such payments has to be made without any deduction from the one month salary paid in lieu of notice. The learned Labour Court has also directed payment of litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-. 2. As per the facts projected, the respondent no. 2 - Workman was appointed as a Consultant on 01.04.2018 and on attaining the age of superannuation, he was released from service w.e.f. 30.04.2019. However, aggrieved with such action, the respondent no. 2 - Workman had initially approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner for conciliation and thereafter, approached the learned Labour Court, Guwahati presumably under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The case was contested by the petitioner - Management by filing written statement and evidence was adduced. The learned Labour Court, vide the aforesaid Award dated 28.07.2022 has granted the relief, as noted above, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. 3. I have heard Shri S.C. Keyal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner assisted by Ms. N. Kakati, learned counsel. Since the respondent no. 2 - Page No.# 3/6 Workman had chosen not to appear, considering the subject matter involved, this Court, vide an order dated 19.06.2026 had requested Shri S. Chakraborty, learned counsel, to assist this Court as an Amicus Curiae. Shri Chakraborty, the learned Amicus Curiae, is accordingly present for the said respondent no. 2 - Workman. 4. Shri Keyal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has, at the outset, submitted that the present challenge is more on principle rather than the amount involved. He has submitted that though there may be a dispute on the date of actual release of the petitioner, whether it is 30.04.2019 or 17.05.2019, there is absolutely no basis to direct payment of two months' salary. He has submitted that the release letter dated 30.04.2019, in clear terms had laid down that such release would be w.e.f. 01.05.2019. He has also submitted that only when the said release letter was submitted by respondent no. 2 with a date 17.05.2019, another view was able to be taken. He has however, reiterated that the release was w.e.f. 01.05.2019 and the Workman in question was not in service from 01.05.2019 to 17.05.2019. He has submitted that from the discussions made on the issues framed, there is no basis for grant of salary for two months, as directed. He has also submitted that taking into consideration the services rendered, one month's salary was paid to the Workman in lieu of notice which should not be construed that the respondent no. 2 had not attained the age of superannuation. He has hastened to add that the learned Labour Court had decided issue no. 4 on the aspect of attaining the age of superannuation in favour of the Management, which is not under challenge. 5. Shri Chakraborty, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent no. 2 - Workman, on the other hand, has submitted that the release letter would suggest that the respondent no. 2 had not attained the age of superannuation Page No.# 4/6 as otherwise there was no reason to pay a month's salary in lieu of any notice. He has submitted that in the application filed before the learned Conciliation Officer, the respondent no. 2 had disclosed his age as 60 years and from the same, it appears that the Management had taken a cue that the respondent no. 2 can be held to have attained the age of superannuation. He has also submitted that from the Standing Orders, it appears that though the age of superannuation is 60 years, the services can be extended. 6. So far as the period from 01.05.2019 to 17.05.2019 is concerned, the learned Amicus has submitted that from the materials on record including the release letter which was in the custody of the respondent no. 2, it appears that such release letter was served upon him only on 17.05.2019. He has also drawn support from the statement of accounts from where it appears that it was only on the next date i.e. 18.05.2019 that the amount was credited to the bank account of the respondent no. 2. 7. So far as the grant of two months salaries is concerned, the learned Amicus has submitted that the same clearly appears to be in the nature of compensation which a learned Labour Court is competent to grant. He has submitted that taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, no fault can be attributed to the impugned Award which may not be interfered with. 8. The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have been carefully examined. 9. At the outset, this Court would like to put on record that the original records of the proceeding could not be produced. 10. One of the issues with which the present challenge has been instituted is the direction to pay full wages for the period from 01.05.2019 to 17.05.2019. In Page No.# 5/6 the materials before this Court, there are two copies of the release letter. While the copy placed on record by the petitioner does not bear any date of receipt, the one which was before the learned Labour Court and was relied upon by the Workman bears a date that it was received on 17.05.2019. The learned Labour Court had accordingly taken a view that till such date, the respondent no. 2 was in service. The said view being based on facts and there are no contra materials coupled with the fact that the original records have not been produced, this Court is of the opinion that it would not be prudent to interfere with the finding of facts arrived at by the learned Labour Court. 11. The issue of the direction to pay full wages for two months would however require a consideration. On a careful perusal of the materials on record, including the pleadings and the discussions made by the learned Labour Court, this Court has failed to find any discussion or basis from which such direction for payment of wages for two months have been made. The learned Amicus for the respondent no. 2 has submitted that the aforesaid direction for payment of salaries for two months can be construed as compensation. Though the learned Amicus may be right in making the aforesaid contention, the observations and findings recorded by the learned Labour Court would however clearly show that the said amount is not by way of compensation, but in clear terms, stated as salaries for two months. There being no basis for making the said direction, this Court is of the opinion that the same has been passed without any jurisdiction and is accordingly interfered with. 12. So far as the litigation cost is concerned, Shri Keyal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that the present challenge being on principle, there would be no serious opposition to the aforesaid amount Page No.# 6/6 being directed to be paid. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the instant writ petition stands allowed by interfering with the Award, so far as the same pertains to a direction for payment of two months’ salary to the respondent no. 2 - Workman. The rest of the directions of the learned Labour Court, Guwahati, vide the Award dated 28.07.2022 however remain intact. 14. Before parting, this Court would like to put on record the appreciation for Shri S. Chakraborty, learned Amicus Curiae for the assistance rendered. JUDGE Comparing Assistant