1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** MAT/27/2025 The General Secretary Vs. The Director (CARI)/CIARI-ICAR Mr. N.A.Khan .. for the appellant Mr. V.D.Sivabalan .. for the respondent September 01, 2026 [AKB] Item No.9 1. The order dated 17.03.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in WPA/342/2024 is impugned in the instant appeal. 2. By the said order, the Hon’ble Single Judge was pleased to hold that as the Award passed by the learned Labour Court was substituted by the Scheme, the order passed by the learned Labour Court does not call for any interference. No relief could be provided to the petitioners/appellants. 3. It appears from the order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge that the appellant prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities to disburse the difference of pay which was due to them.This difference arose due to the prolonged litigation that continued from the learned Trial Court upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 4. The observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have been set out in the order impugned. It appears therefrom that the Hon’ble Supreme Court took note of the Scheme framed by the authority and produced before the Court along with the 2 additional affidavit. The Hon’ble Supreme Court recorded that the Scheme was not acceptable to the workers. 5. Despite recording the objection of the workers, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that as the Scheme with regard to the settlement of the grievance of the workers have already been framed, the appeals be disposed of by directing implementation of the Scheme in substitution of the Award passed by the Labour Court. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court made it clear that in case the workers have any surviving grievance, it will be open to them to make representation before the authority or pursue the same in appropriate proceeding. 7. Pursuant to the leave granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, a representation was filed before the Director, Central Agricultural Research Institute. As no steps were taken by the authority, the appellant approached the learned Labour Court. The learned Labour Court rejected the claim of the appellant by passing order on 23.08.2019. The learned Labour Court took note of the fact that the payment to the workers was made as one time settlement in terms of the Scheme and there was no scope for directing further payment. 8. The Hon’ble Single Judge was pleased not to interference with the order passed by the learned Labour Court. 9. We have perused the documents incorporated in the paper book and have heard the submissions made on behalf of both the parties. Admittedly, in the instant case, the payment to the workers was made pursuant to a calculation chart that was 3 prepared by the authority and produced before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the name of a Scheme. The calculation sheet pursuant to which payment was made, does not disclose the terms and conditions of payment. The chart merely contains certain headings namely serial no., name, minimum wages/days, number of working days in month, months in a year, yearly payment and five years. The calculation sheet annexed to the affidavit filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court is absolutely vague. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to grant liberty to the workers to make representation or pursue in appropriate proceedings. 10. We have perused the objection filed by the petitioner in terms of the leave granted to the workers. The same appears to be equally vague. The grievances of the workers, as submitted before this Court, are not mentioned in the objection. The learned Labour Court as well as the Hon’ble Single Judge opined that as payment was made to the workers in terms of the calculation placed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, refused to interfere with the matter. 11. We are of the considered opinion that, admittedly, the workers have failed to point out their grievance properly before any of the forum. 12. Once the award gets merged with the so-called Scheme and the payment is disbursed in their favour, there is hardly any scope to reopen the issue all over again. Had the objection to the Scheme being made by the workers in a proper manner, there would have been a possibility of reassessment of the 4 same. That not being the case, we donot find any reason to interfere either with the order of the learned Labour Court or with the order of the Hon’ble Single Judge. 13. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. 14. All parties are directed to act on a server copy of this judgment duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. ( Amrita Sinha, J. ) ( Biswaroop Chowdhury, J.)