IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] ******** PRESENT: HON’BLE JUSTICE TIRTHANKAR GHOSH AND HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS) MAT/64/2025 The Executive Engineer, South Andaman Division, APWD ... Appellant Versus Smt. Manasi Rani Poddar ... Respondent For the Appellant : Mr. V.D.Sivabalan For the respondent : Mr. Ananda Halder Heard on : 12.03.2026 Judgment on : 17.03.2026 CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J. 1. This intra Court appeal has been filed by the Executive Engineer, South Andaman Division, APWD against the judgement and order dated 4th November, 2025 passed in WPA/454/2025 by the learned Single Judge on 4th November, 2025. Fact of the case 2. A writ petition was filed against the award passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Port Blair in I.D case No.02 of 2024 on July 29, 2025, whereby the Labour Court 2 set aside the order of retrenchment/termination of the petitioner, holding it as illegal and unjustified. Further direction was given to reinstate the present applicant with immediate effect as Daily Rated Mazdoor with effect from July 4, 2022 and directed the present appellant to pay all further wages, including all consequential benefits and interest at the rate of6% from this date till the date of payment. 3. The learned Single Judge, considering the submissions made by the learned counsels held that the Labour Court did not commit any error in setting aside the order of retrenchment/termination of the respondent directing the reinstatement of the respondent as a Daily Rated Mazdoor with effect from July 4, 2022. Accordingly affirmed the judgement passed by the learned Labour Court. However, the learned Single Bench held that since the respondent did not work from July 4, 2022 till date of the order, full back wages should not be paid and hence directed payment of 75% of the back wages in three installments with 6% interest per annum to be calculated from July 4, 2022 till the date of payment of the third installment. Challenging such order of the Learned Single Bench this intra court appeal is filed by the Employer. 3 Submission by the Appellant 4. The learned advocate representing the appellant submitted that the Labour Court erred in holding that absence of an explicit recommendation for retrenchment in the enquiry report invalidated the notice. The enquiry committee‘s scope was misconstrued which was constituted only to examine the complaint of harassment as alleged by the respondent and not to adjudicate service continuation or refreshment. It is further argued that the learned Labour Court relied upon the minutes recorded in the conciliation proceeding and passed such order on the basis of such minute of the order, which is an internal communication and cannot be relied upon. Such observation of the Labour Court was affirmed by the Hon‘ble Single Bench against which this appeal has been filed. That apart, it was specifically held by the enquiry committee that the respondent was inefficient and did not perform her duties as she was transferred and deputed at the office of Tehsildar and leveled false allegations against her superiors. Furthermore she admittedly did not work since July 4,2022 but she was given 75% of the full back wages with interest which amounts to waste of public money. 4 Submission of the Respondent 5. The learned advocate, representing the respondent on the other hand, raises vehement objection and argued the entire conduct on the part of the Appellant Authority was arbitrary and with ulterior motive to retrench the respondent since she raised objection about the illegal order of transfer in violation of the office order and also because she and N. Palayee raised voices against the harassment made against them by the Superior officials. The authority failed to produce any document to substantiate the dereliction of duty on the part of the respondent before serving retrenchment notice. The enquiry committee so constituted, who, without collecting any materials and or recording statement of any other person, submitted such enquiry report against the present respondent and solely on the basis of which the order of retrenchment was passed when the enquiry was constituted only to enquire about the complaint made by the respondent against her superior officer .. 6. Further argument before the Conciliation Officer by the department failed to prove her inefficiency and lack of punctuality against the respondent. The Labour Commissioner issued an order recommending the Executive Engineer, SAD to immediately reinstate her service, but the 5 EE, SAD, against whom she leveled allegations, remained silent and did not adhere to the directions of the court of Labour Commissioner and lastly the Industrial Tribunal after being referred from the office of the Labour Commissioner Port Blair took up the matter . Therefore the Learned Labour Court rightly set aside the order of retrenchment which has been affirmed by the Hon’ble single Bench and hence there is no reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly prayed for dismissal of this appeal. The learned advocate relied upon the decision of the case of Surinder Kumar Verma etc vs The Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum Labour Court AIR 1981 AIR 422 and Jayantibhai Raojibhai Patel vs Municipal Council Narkhed & ors reported in (2019) 08 SC CK 0068 in order to show that the respondent is entitled for the entire back wages. Analysis Heard the submissions of both the learned advocates. 7. In this case the impugned order directed the reinstatement of the employee qua the respondent with effect from July4, 2022 and further directed to pay 75% of arrear towards back wages in three installments alongwith interest of 6% computed from July 4, 2022.The question arose before the 6 Writ court whether the allegations made in the Retrenchment notice was illegal . 8. In the instant case originally the respondent was engaged as Skilled Daily Rated Employee under the Executive Engineer/Appellant herein on October 2013, and since then she was working. Subsequently vide order number 252 dated October 5, 2021, she was given the benefit of1/30thof minimum pay scale plus dearness allowances from September 1, 2017. On September 3, 2019, the Chief Engineer, Andaman Public Works Department issued a letter whereby process was initiated for retrenchment of 11% of Daily Rated Mazdoor followed by retrenchment notice issued under Section 25F of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. 9. A writ petition was filed challenging the said letter being W.P no. 250 of 2019 before the Circuit Bench of High Court sitting at Port Blair and on December 19, 2019 the writ petition was dismissed followed by an intra court appeal being MAT No.2 of 2020 and vide an order dated January 7, 2020 the said appeal was disposed of whereby the aforesaid notice was set aside and allowed the interim order of stay to continue till the disposal of the conciliation proceeding. Meantime, the respondent was transferred to the office of the Tehsildar vide office order dated 06.04.2022during pendency of a writ 7 petition by the Union being WP number 13979(w) of 2019. On April 13, 2022, the respondent and one N.Palayee made an elaborate complaint to the Lieutenant Governor and Chief Secretary regarding harassment at workplace by Kishore Narayan and Akash Kishan the Assistant Engineer I/C subdivision -V (SAD) and Assistant Engineer (SAD).After that the statement of the present respondent was recorded by a committee consisted of Executive Engineer and Assistant Engineer and she narrated the entire facts to the committee on April 24, 2022. She was served with a notice on July 7, 2022, under Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, where the allegation was made against her about her non performance of duties and creating a negative environment in the office which was controverted by the respondent by filing the statement of demand before the Court of the Conciliation Officer, Labour Commissioner in the year, September 2022. 10. The learned Coordinate Bench took note of the facts and circumstances and the observation of the Labour Court who found that although the notice under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act was based on the report of the enquiry committee, no such recommendation or observations had been made by the committee with regard to the proposal 8 for entrenchment of the petitioner. It was held that the committee did not have the jurisdiction to make such recommendation as the same was constituted only to look into the complaint filed by the respondent and nothing beyond. The subject matter for filing this intra court appeal is this observation of the labour court and affirmed by the Learned Single Bench . 11. On careful perusal of the four corners of the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the judgement passed by the Learned Labour court, it is evident that no documentary evidence was reported or placed by the department to prove the inefficiency of the present respondent. The Learned Labour Court considered that it was recorded by the conciliation officer in the minutes which were duly admitted by the DW1 being the appellant herein in his cross- examination. 12. The contention of the learned advocate representing the appellant that both the Labour Court as well as the learned Single Bench passed their order on the basis of the minutes of the said enquiry committee which is an internal document and cannot be relied upon and hence is liable to be set aside. We are of the opinion that such argument is devoid of any merit in view of the fact that the appellant filed the affidavit 9 in chief and was cross examined by the respondent in full and the witness exhibited document which were marked as exhibit DWA to DW-IE. The said minute was exhibit as DW- 1/WW4, so it was produced by the Appellant and was exhibited, which was relied upon by both the learned Labour Court as well as the learned Single Bench. Hence appellant further cannot raise objection regarding relying upon the said minute and the acceptability of such report by the Learned Labour Court . The learned Single Bench rightly observed that the learned Labour Court gone into each and every aspect of the matter and held the scope of enquiry was only with regard to the complaint filed by the respondent against her superior officer and it was closed as it was found that the contents of the same were false and fabricated in absence of any cogent evidence in support thereof. 13. The conciliation officer relied upon the report of the enquiry committee which was provided by the complainant as received via RTI application. The conciliation officer found that no documentary evidence was there to prove the inefficiency and the contents of the complaint. The conciliation officer directed the department to submit the seniority list of their names on August 2022 in next conciliation meeting and on 06thApril 2023. It was observed 10 that the list shows that the employer did not follow the first come last out principal while terminating the complainant. Further observed that the employer informed that they will submit their final written comments on the decision of reinstating the complaints within 10 days time but such was not placed as it was not an appeal filed against in action of Executive Engineer before the Labour Commissioner by the respondent on July 17,, 2023. 14. It further transpired that on July 24, 2023, since the final written comments on the decision of the complainant was not filed the Conciliation Officer gave a letter to the Executive Engineer to note that he will submit the failure of conciliation report to the Administration, considering the decision as non- willingness for reinstatement by the employer if no reply on the subject matter is received. Ultimately on October 10, 2023 from the office of the Labour Commissioner submitted the report on failure of conciliation on the basis of which the matter went before the learned Labour Court. 15. Therefore, the apathy on the part of the authority is glaringly visible, who, despite giving several opportunities to give his written comments sat tight over the matter. The notice under section 25F of the Industrial Dispute Act ,1947 was issued primarily on the basis of the enquiry report where it was 11 established that the complaint lodged by the respondent was false but never observed that any the respondent was inefficient or there was dereliction on her part in rendering service. So the issue before the enquiry committee was not related with the number of days the respondent was employed, but the notice was issued observing her ‘nil output’ in the office. 16. Hence, nowhere from the four corners of the judgement passed by the learned Single Bench, it can be found that the learned Single Judge exceeded the scope of judicial review. 17. The other limb of argument was that the learned Single Judge while allowing the petition passed the order to pay the full back wages to the extent of 75% to be paid in three installment along with 6% interest to be calculated from July 4, 2022, till the date of payment of the third installment. Admittedly, the respondent did not work from July 4, 2022. The contention of the learned advocate of the respondent that she was always willing to do the duty, but was not allowed to discharge her duties resulted not performing her work during that period for which she should not be held responsible. From the discussions made above, it is apparent that for the reasons best known to the appellant there was an inordinate delay in disposing of the representations but at the same 12 time, it is undisputed that she did not serve from July 4, 2022 till passing of such order on November 4 2025, and also till date. 18. In this regard the judgement delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme court in Surendra Kumar Verma (supra) is to be looked into. In that case the service of the Appellants was terminated on the ground that they could not pass the prescribed test for their permanent absorption in its service. The labour court passed the order of reinstatement with full back wages. 19. The three judges bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a person who actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days during the period of 5 months shall be deemed to have been in continuous service for a period of one year and it is enough that he worked for 240 days in a period of 12 months. In the case of Jayantibhai Raojibhai Patel (supra) it was observed that while the payment of full back wages would be the normal rule, there can be a departure from it where necessary circumstances have been established and the Tribunal will exercise its discretion keeping in view all the relevant circumstances but such discretion must be exercised in a judicial and judicious manner. In that case the charge of misconduct was not 13 substantiated and hence directed to pay lumpsum compensation in full and final settlement of back wages claim. In this case the charge was nil outpour and inefficiency of respondent on the basis of the enquiry report of a committee constituted to enquire about a complaint made by the respondent against her superior officers for harassment at workplace, where the committee was of the opinion that the allegations of respondents were false. It was also observed that ‘the relief of reinstatement with continuity oi of service can be given where termination of service found to be invalid . It would mean that the employer has taken away illegally the right work of the workman contrary to the relevant law or in breach of contract and simultaneously deprived the workman of his earnings .If thus employer is found to be in the wrong as a result of which the workman is directed to be reinstated ,the employer could not shirk his responsibility of paying the wages which the workman has been deprived of by the illegal or invalid action of the employer’. CONCLUSION 20. Therefore in this case the employer also cannot shirk his responsibility however admittedly the respondent did not work during the period hence the Learned single Bench rightly passed the quantum towards full back wages of 75% 14 along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum to be calculated from July 4, 2022 till payment of the second installment. 21. Hence this intra court appeal has got no merit and is therefore liable to be dismissed. 22. Accordingly this MAT/64/2025 is hereby dismissed. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby affirmed. 23. No order as to the costs. 24. Urgent photostat certified copy of this Judgment, if applied for, is to be given to the parties on priority basis on compliance of all legal formalities. (CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.) I agree. (TIRTHANKAR GHOSH, J.)