Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 10532 (GAU)

Jagot Tossa v. Management of Muttack Tea Estate

2026-04-28

Devashis Baruah

body2026
JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. 1. Heard Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. S. Mochahary, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. D. Nath, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1. 2. This Court strikes out the Respondent No.2 from the array of parties inasmuch as, it is well settled that when an Authority exercises judicial powers, the said Authority ought not to have been made a party in a writ proceedings. In fact, the Supreme Court in various judgments has also deprecated arraying the Presiding Officers of the Tribunals as parties to the writ proceedings. PREFACE: 3. The instant writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner challenging the Award dated 06.10.2017 passed in Reference Case No.1/2015 by the Court of the learned Industrial Tribunal of Assam, at Dibrugarh (for short ‘the learned Industrial Tribunal’) whereby the application filed by the writ Petitioner under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (for short ‘the Act of 1947’) was dismissed holding inter alia that the Petitioner is not entitled to be reinstated in his service with full back wages nor any other consequential benefits and further opining that the Petitioner would be entitled to get all the benefits due to him from the date of the joining in his service till the date of dismissal as per the rules of the Tea Estate. 4. The question which arises in the instant proceedings is as to whether this Court in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution should interfere with the impugned Award dated 06.10.2017. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE: 5. The brief facts which led to the filing of the instant proceedings are that on 02.11.2006, the management of the Respondent Tea Estate issued a notice informing all concerned that some of the workers of Muttuck Tea Estate have been indulging in acts subversive of discipline in respect to lands within the Tea Estate grant and have passed on occupation to unauthorized persons, resulting in encroachment of garden lands. It was further mentioned that in the recent past, the workers have been warned of such illegal activities, but no attention has been paid to the Management's reasonable pleas. It was further mentioned that if such activities are carried on, strict disciplinary action as well as appropriate legal measures would be adopted to oust the encroachers. It was further mentioned that in the recent past, the workers have been warned of such illegal activities, but no attention has been paid to the Management's reasonable pleas. It was further mentioned that if such activities are carried on, strict disciplinary action as well as appropriate legal measures would be adopted to oust the encroachers. Additionally, it was informed that any worker involved in such illegal and subversive activities would be liable for termination from service. 6. Pursuant thereto, a notice was issued to the Petitioner on 16.11.2006 alleging that on 12.11.2006, the Petitioner had constructed a Kutcha house in Bunglawguri line without any prior discussion/permission from the Management. It was further mentioned that in the General Notice dated 02.11.2006, it was clearly informed to all workers of the garden regarding encroachment of the company's land. Further to that, in the notice dated 16.11.2006, it was mentioned that if the charges against the Petitioner i.e. the Petitioner on 12.11.2006 had constructed a Kutcha house in Bunglawguri line without any prior discussion/permission from the Management in clear violation to the General Notice dated 02.11.2006, if proved, it would be an offence under Clause 10(a)2 of the Standing Order in force in the Tea Estate. The petitioner was asked to explain by 18.11.2006 at 8:00 AM why disciplinary action should not be taken against the Petitioner. 7. The records reveal that the Petitioner thereupon submitted an explanation on 23.11.2006 to the said communication dated 16.11.2006 and in the said communication, the Petitioner stated that the land had been first in possession of his father and upon him for over 60 years and the Petitioner has been using and utilizing the said plot of land under physical actual possession, for which a Possession Certificate was issued on 12.03.2000 by the Circle Officer, Dibrugarh East/West Revenue Circle and land revenue receipt showing revenue thereof was paid up to 2006/2007. In other words, it was the stand of the Petitioner that what the Petitioner had done was on the strength of valid document issued and as such, the Petitioner did not deserve the notice and the serious charges leveled against the Petitioner were nothing but a mere conspiracy against an innocent person like the Petitioner. The Petitioner also sought for personal hearing. 8. The Petitioner also sought for personal hearing. 8. The records further reveal that the Management being dissatisfied with the Petitioner's reply, instituted a domestic enquiry to enquire into the charges which were leveled upon the Petitioner. The Enquiry Report of the Enquiry Officer has been exhibited before the learned Industrial Tribunal as Exhibit-A(7). From a perusal of the said Enquiry Report, it is apparent that the charges against the Petitioner, i.e. “On 12.11.2006, the workman has constructed a kutcha house at Bunglawguri line unauthorizedly when the Management issued a General Notice on 02.11.2006 to all garden workers not to encroach any company's land” was read over and explained to the Petitioner in Assamese. It is further seen that upon reading the charges and explained to the Petitioner, the Petitioner pleaded guilty to the charges by submitting his written reply. 9. Be that as it may, the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry by examining the witnesses on behalf of the Management as well as the Workman (Petitioner) and thereupon opined after a factual adjudication that the Management was able to establish the charges as mentioned in the charge sheet against the workman beyond all reasonable doubt. It was further mentioned in the said Enquiry Report that the Petitioner was guilty of the charges as leveled against him which amounted to gross misconduct as per the Standing Order in force on the Tea Estate. 10. Upon the said Enquiry Report being submitted by the Enquiry Officer on 31.01.2007, the Petitioner was issued a Show Cause Notice on 13.02.2007 enclosing the Enquiry Report and asking the Petitioner to Show Cause within 7 (seven) days so that the Management could take a final decision regarding the Petitioner's case. It was further mentioned that in the event of no representation being submitted, it shall be presumed the Petitioner had no representation to submit and the Management would dispose of the case in a manner deem appropriate. 11. The Petitioner thereupon vide a communication dated 27.02.2007 sought for one month's time. The Management granted an extension to the Petitioner up to 09.03.2007 vide a communication dated 27.02.2007 for submission of the representation. In spite of those opportunities being granted, the Petitioner did not submit the representation rather, on 09.03.2007, the Petitioner again sought for further time. 11. The Petitioner thereupon vide a communication dated 27.02.2007 sought for one month's time. The Management granted an extension to the Petitioner up to 09.03.2007 vide a communication dated 27.02.2007 for submission of the representation. In spite of those opportunities being granted, the Petitioner did not submit the representation rather, on 09.03.2007, the Petitioner again sought for further time. The Management vide another communication dated 12.03.2007 provided the Petitioner another 3 (three) days time to submit the representation and further intimating that there shall be no further extension of time. The Petitioner thereupon, submitted a reply on 14.03.2007 and the Management of the Respondent Tea Estate after duly considering the same, decided to dismiss the Petitioner from the services of the Company w.e.f. 01.04.2007 vide a communication dated 31.03.2007. 12. The Petitioner thereupon filed an application under Section 2A of the Act of 1947. On the basis of such application filed by the Petitioner, a Reference Case was registered being Reference Case No.1/2015. Both the parties were provided opportunity to file their respective pleadings as well as adduce evidence. Vide the impugned Award dated 06.10.2017, the Reference Case No.1/2015 was dismissed thereby upholding the decision of dismissal of the Petitioner by the Respondent Management. It is under such circumstances, the present petition has been filed. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES: 13. Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the entire proceedings which was initiated on the basis of the Show Cause Notice dated 16.11.2006 was defective inasmuch as the Show Cause Notice which was issued was vague. The learned Senior counsel submitted that in the Show Cause Notice dated 16.11.2006, there was a mention that if the allegations are proved, it would be an offence under Clause 10(a)2 of the Standing Orders in force on the Estate. The Senior counsel submitted that the Standing Orders which are applicable are the Standing Orders for the Tea Estate in Assam in the membership of the Assam and Surma Valley Branches of the Indian Tea Association and in terms with the said Standing Orders, there is no Clause 10(a)2 rather there is a Clause being Clause 10(a)(ii) and a perusal of the said Clause would show that the allegation would be theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with the company's business or property. 14. 14. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that the allegations which is mentioned in Paragraph No.2 of the Show Cause Notice dated 16.11.2006, under no circumstances can be said to be a misconduct in terms with Clause 10(a)(ii) of the Standing Orders. In that regard, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sur Enamel and Stamping Works Limited Vs. Workmen, AIR 1963 SC 1914 and submitted that the facts of the said case are similar to the facts of the instant case inasmuch as, in the said case which was pending before the Supreme Court, the charge was in respect to deliberately causing damage to the raw materials whereas the ground on which the workman therein was dismissed was on the ground of willful insubordination. The learned Senior counsel therefore submitted that in the instant case, a perusal of the charge shows that the Petitioner had encroached upon some land of the Respondent Tea Estate whereas the action which was sought to be taken was in terms of Clause 10(a)(ii) of the Standing Orders which pertains to theft, dishonesty and fraud in connection with the company's business or property. 15. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that a perusal of the evidence on record would show that the that the Management Witness No.1 upon being cross-examined had categorically admitted that the Petitioner was not issued any notice for eviction and therefore, without issuance of such notice of eviction, how the allegation of willful insubordination to the actions of the Respondent Management can be said to have been proved. This aspect was of vital significance which the learned Industrial Tribunal failed to take into consideration and thereby had rendered the impugned Award perverse. 16. Per contra, Mr. D. Nath, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1 submitted that the notice dated 02.11.2006 thereby directing all workers not to encroach upon the Respondent Tea Estate property or carry out any illegal activities of transferring was a prelude to the Show Cause Notice dated 16.11.2006. In spite of the said notice dated 02.11.2006, the Petitioner on 12.11.2006 started construction of a kutcha house in the Bunglawguri line without any prior discussion/permission from the Management. The same constituted gross misconduct. In spite of the said notice dated 02.11.2006, the Petitioner on 12.11.2006 started construction of a kutcha house in the Bunglawguri line without any prior discussion/permission from the Management. The same constituted gross misconduct. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1 further submitted that it has never been the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner has not understood the charge which has been leveled against the Petitioner rather, at the time upon initiation of the domestic enquiry, when the Petitioner was read over the charge, the Petitioner had pleaded guilty. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Tea Estate further submitted that the pleaded case of the Petitioner was that the construction was not made by his grandfather however, during the cross-examination, he admitted that the construction was carried out by his son which vindicates the stand taken by the Respondent Management. The learned counsel further submitted that the Petitioner though mentioned that the Petitioner as well as his father were in occupation of a particular plot of land since ages but there is no denial by the Petitioner to the fact that the Respondent Management is the owner of the land and this aspect would be apparent from a very perusal of the cross-examination of the Petitioner wherein he duly admitted that the land in respect to which the Certificate has been issued belongs to the Respondent Tea Estate. 17. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1 further submitted that there is no necessity for this Court even to discuss on the question of merit inasmuch as, the fairness of the domestic enquiry has been upheld as would be seen from the impugned Award dated 06.10.2017 wherein the Issue No.3 which pertains to the fairness of the domestic enquiry have been discussed and there is no perversity in the opinion rendered by the learned Industrial Tribunal in respect to the said issue. The learned counsel therefore submitted that it is a settled principle of law that in respect to the internal affairs of a particular company, more particularly as regards the discipline, the interference by the Court is limited more particularly when the domestic enquiry held is not in violation to the principles of natural justice or there is no perversity in respect to such enquiry report. 18. 18. The learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 submitted that the learned Industrial Tribunal had duly considered all these aspects and found there to be neither a case of perversity nor a case of violation of the principles of natural justice and as such, the question of interference with the impugned Award dated 06.10.2017 would not arise in exercise of the certiorari jurisdiction of this Court. ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION: 19. I have heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and have perused the materials on record as well as the records of Reference Case No.1/2015. 20. The first contention of the Petitioner is that the Show Cause Notice dated 16.11.2006 was defective inasmuch as the allegations so made are vague. It appear to this Court that the said contention is misplaced and an afterthought inasmuch as, the Petitioner has never raised an issue in the entire proceedings right from the time of submission of the reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 16.11.2006 till the decision was rendered by the learned Industrial Tribunal in Reference Case No.1/2015 that the allegations so made against the Petitioner were not clear for him to understand for which the Petitioner was prejudiced. 21. It is further relevant to take note of that on 02.11.2006, there was a specific notice issued by the Management. This notice dated 02.11.2006 has been exhibited at Exhibit-9 before the learned Industrial Tribunal. A perusal of the said Exhibit-9, makes it clear that the Management of the Respondent Tea Estate had informed all workers that any worker involved in illegal and subversive activity of occupation or passing on for occupation to unauthorized persons resulting in encroachment of garden lands, strict disciplinary actions would be taken and would result in termination of service. The finding of facts arrived at by both the Enquiry Officer as well as by the learned Industrial Tribunal shows that on 12.11.2006, the Petitioner had constructed a kutcha house in Bunglawguri line without any prior discussion/permission from the Management which was in conflict with the General Notice dated 02.11.2006. This aspect was informed to the Petitioner vide the Show Cause Notice dated 16.11.2006 as to why action should not be taken against the Petitioner for constructing a kutcha house on 12.11.2006 over the land of the Respondent Company. This aspect was informed to the Petitioner vide the Show Cause Notice dated 16.11.2006 as to why action should not be taken against the Petitioner for constructing a kutcha house on 12.11.2006 over the land of the Respondent Company. In the said notice dated 16.11.2006, it was also mentioned that if the offence which is alleged is proved, it would constitute an offence under Clause 10(a)2 of the Standing Orders. 22. It is pertinent to mention that a perusal of the Standing Orders show that Clause 10(a) stipulates what amounts to gross misconduct. There is no numerical (2) as a sub-clause. However, there are various sub-clauses (i) to (xii) of Clause 10(a) which would constitute a gross misconduct. The Petitioner at the time of submission of the reply, did not mention that there was any vagueness in the allegations so made in the Show Cause Notice dated 16.11.2006 rather, it was the specific case of the Petitioner that the land which the Petitioner was possessing and had constructed a kutcha house was a land which had been under the occupation of the Petitioner as well as his father for the last 60 years and the Petitioner based his case on the basis of certain documents issued by the Circle Officer, Dibrugarh East/West Revenue Circle. 23. The records further reveal that the reply so submitted by the Petitioner was not found satisfactory and as such, on 22.12.2006, the Management of the Respondent Tea Estate decided to hold an enquiry into the charges against the Petitioner and the Petitioner was informed vide the communication dated 22.12.2006, that one Smti A. Sarmah of Tinsukia had been appointed as the Enquiry Officer and the Petitioner was asked to report on 25.12.2006 at 9:30 AM in the Office to attend the enquiry proceedings. This aspect would be evident from Exhibit-11 of the reference proceedings. 24. The records reveal that the charge against the Petitioner was read over by the Enquiry Officer during the domestic enquiry proceedings and the Petitioner pleaded guilty. The Petitioner then also did not mention that there was any vagueness in the allegations in the Show Cause Notice rather the Petitioner had pleaded guilty. 25. This Court has also perused the application so filed by the Petitioner before the learned Industrial Tribunal under Section 2A of the Act of 1947. The Petitioner then also did not mention that there was any vagueness in the allegations in the Show Cause Notice rather the Petitioner had pleaded guilty. 25. This Court has also perused the application so filed by the Petitioner before the learned Industrial Tribunal under Section 2A of the Act of 1947. A perusal of the said application would further show that there is not a single whisper that the Show Cause Notice dated 16.11.2006 was defective or the contents of the said Show Cause Notice were vague which had prejudiced the Petitioner in submitting his reply. 26. This Court has also perused the evidence which have been adduced by the Petitioner before the learned Industrial Tribunal wherein also, there is not a single statement made in the evidence on affidavit to the effect that the Petitioner was prejudiced on account of the vagueness in the Show Cause Notice dated 16.11.2006. Apart from the above, it is also pertinent to observe that during the cross-examination of the Management Witness No.1, the said witness was specifically asked that the charge alleged did not come within the ambit of Clause 10(a)(i) and 10(b)(ii) of the Standing Orders. 27. Considering the above, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that the first contention so made by the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner appears to be an afterthought. It is the opinion of this Court that the allegations constituting the charge upon the Petitioner were clear, definite and unambiguous. Merely on account of mentioning that upon the charge being proved, it would constitute an offence under Clause 10(a)(2) of the Standing Orders would not result in nullifying the entire proceedings inasmuch as the Petitioner duly understood the charge and never complained as regards its vagueness or indefiniteness. 28. At this stage, this Court further finds it relevant to observe that in the present facts, the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sur Enamel and Stamping Works Limited (supra) would not be applicable inasmuch as the allegation made therein was causing damage to the raw materials but action was taken on the charge of insubordination. 29. In that view of the matter, the first contention raised by the learned Senior counsel for the Petitioner stands rejected. 30. 29. In that view of the matter, the first contention raised by the learned Senior counsel for the Petitioner stands rejected. 30. The second contention so raised by the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner is on the question of perversity in the impugned Award inasmuch as it is the contention of the learned Senior counsel that the Petitioner having not been issued any notice to vacate, no disciplinary proceedings can be initiated against Petitioner. On this aspect, the learned Senior counsel had referred to the evidence of the Management Witness No.1 wherein the Management Witness No.1 had stated that he had not issued any written notice to the Petitioner during his cross-examination. 31. This Court has duly considered the said aspect and in the opinion of this Court, the said submission is also misconceived inasmuch as, a General Notice was issued on 02.11.2006 to all workers not to encroach upon the lands of the Respondent Tea Estate or carry out any such illegal activities. It was also mentioned that if any of the workers were found to be indulging in such activities, strict disciplinary actions would be taken which would result in termination of the employment. There is no denial to the fact that the said General Notice dated 02.11.2006 was not issued or that the Petitioner had no knowledge of the same. In fact, the issuance of the said notice dated 02.11.2006 had been proved. 32. It is further seen that on 16.11.2006, the Petitioner was charged with the allegation that on 12.11.2006, the Petitioner had constructed a Kutcha house on the company's land in spite of there being a general notice dated 02.11.2006. Further to that, it is also apposite to observe that whether notice to vacate was issued or not had no relevance to the issue involved inasmuch as the issue involved is whether in spite of the Notice dated 02.11.2006, the construction of a house on 12.11.2006 constituted gross misconduct for initiating disciplinary proceedings. 33. Further to that, it is also apposite to observe that whether notice to vacate was issued or not had no relevance to the issue involved inasmuch as the issue involved is whether in spite of the Notice dated 02.11.2006, the construction of a house on 12.11.2006 constituted gross misconduct for initiating disciplinary proceedings. 33. This Court had further in detailed perused the findings so arrived at by the Enquiry Officer as well as the learned Industrial Tribunal wherein there are findings of fact that the Petitioner had committed acts which would constitute gross misconduct in terms with Clause 10(a)(i) and 10(a)(ii) of the Standing Orders and it is the opinion of this Court that the findings of the Enquiry Officer as well as the learned Industrial Tribunal are in consonance with the evidence which have been produced before the Enquiry Officer as well as the learned Industrial Tribunal. 34. This Court at this stage finds it relevant to take note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences and Another Vs. Bikartan Das and Others, (2023) SCC Online SC 996 wherein the Supreme Court categorically observed that the exercise of a writ in the nature of certiorari can only be made when the order passed by the inferior Tribunal suffers from perversity. In the instant case, as no perversity could be shown by the Petitioner in the impugned Award dated 06.10.2017 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, it is the opinion of this Court that the question of interference with the impugned Award dated 06.10.2017 does not arise. CONCLUSION: 35. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. 36. The Registry shall return the records to the learned Industrial Tribunal. 37. There shall be no order as to costs.