Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010004342010 2026:GAU-AS:11769 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1394/2010 THE MANAGEMENT OF GILLAPHUKHURI TEA ESTATE P.O. TINSUKIA, OWNED OF GILLAPHUKHURI TEA COMPANY LTD, A COMPANY UNDER THE COMPANY'S ACT HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT 9, BROBOURNE ROAD, 3RD FLOOR, KOLKATA 700001, DIST TINSUKIA, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR D.N. KANOI VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM and ORS. REP. BY THE SECY., LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT DEPTT, DISPUR GHY-6 2:THE ASSTT. LABOUR COMMISSIONER DIST TINSUKIA P.O.TINSUKIA ASSAM 3:THE PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ASSAM AT DIBRUGARH 4:ABHIMANYU GOWALI 5:MOHAN GANJU 6:JAI KUMAR Page No.# 2/10 7:JAMBU KUMAR 8:BEIJU MUNDARI 9:KASHINATH MUNDARI 10:AJAY BHUMUJ 11:TRINATH 12:BUDHESHWAR MUNDARI 13:MANIK DENIAL 14:RAMESH BIRCHE 15:SUREN NABAGHONA 16:SAMEL ADAM 17:BARUN NARAYAN 18:PARCHUMANI MOHAN 19:KESHOBOTY BUDHESHWAR 20:BENATA ABHIMENY 21:BHARATI AJAY 22:ELESABA MANIK Page No.# 3/10 23:SANTI SUREN 24:KIRAN JAI 25:EMITI SANA 26:ANAMI JAMBU 27:ASHA SAMEL ALL RESIDING AT GILLAPHUKURI TEA ESTATE DIST TINSUKIA 28:THE SECY. ASSAM CHAH MAZDOOR SANGHA PANITOLA BRANCH P.O. TINSUKI Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.S CHETIA, MR.A SARMA,MR.D BARUAH,MSM L GOPE,MR.A GOYAL,DR.ASHOK SARAF,MR.S N SARMA,MISSN HAWELIA Advocate for the Respondent : , ,MS. M BHARALI,GA, ASSAM,,MR.S CHAKRABORTY,MR.N BARUA, B E F O R E Hon’ble MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI Advocate for the petitioners: Shri A. Sarma Advocates for the respondents : Shri S. Chakraborty Date on which judgment is reserved : NA Date of pronouncement of judgment: 18.08.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment? : NA Page No.# 4/10 Whether the full judgment has been pronounced? : Yes JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) An Award dated 19.08.2008 passed in Reference Case No.18/2000 by the learned Labour Court, Dibrugarh is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By the impugned Award, the issues framed in the Reference have been answered in favour of the Workmen and against the Management. 2. The facts, in brief are that a Reference was made to the learned Labour Court, Dibrugarh on the following issues: 1) Whether the management of Gillaphukuri Tea Estate is justified in terminating employment of Sarvashree (1) Abhimanyu Gowall, (2) Mohan Ganju, (3) Jai Kumar, (4) Jambu Kumar, (5) Beiju Mundari, (6) Kashinath Mundari, (7) Ajay Bhumij, (8) Trinath, (9) Budheswar Mundari, (10) Manik Denial, (11) Ramesh Bircha, (12) Suren Nabaghone, (13) Samel Adam, (14) Barun Narayan, (15) Parchumoni Mohan, (16) Kesheboty Bhudeswar, (17) Jenota Abhimanyu, (18) Bharati Ajay, (19) Elesoba Manik, (20) Santi Suren, (21) Kiron Jaj, (22) Emili Sona, (23) Anami Jamboo and (24) Asha Samel for their alleged misconduct? 2) If not, whether they should be reinstated with back wages or any other relief in lieu thereof? 3. The same was contested by the parties by filing written statement. 4. The Management, which is the petitioner in this writ petition, has contended that to bring home the charges, there was a domestic inquiry. Page No.# 5/10 However, the learned Labour Court had examined the aspect of fairness of the domestic inquiry and decided against the Management. Under those conditions, the Management had adduced evidence on merits regarding the 3 nos. of charges. In gist, the 3 nos. of charges pertained to unauthorized absence, encroachment of the land of the Management and insubordination as the notices were refused to be accepted. It is also contended that the charges were proved before the learned Labour Court by a management witness and as many as 462 nos. of documents were exhibited. However, the learned Labour Court had come to a finding that no documentary evidence were there and accordingly the charges were held to be not proved and the Reference accordingly answered. 5. I have heard Shri A. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner - Management. I have also heard Shri S. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondents – Workman. 6. At the outset, it is to be mentioned that the records of the learned Labour Court, which were called for by this Court, have remained untraced in spite of a number of attempts. Even orders for reconstruction of the records which were passed could not help the matter, as no papers could be retrieved. Further, Shri Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondents has also expressed his predicament, as there was no contact with the client. 7. Be that as it may, considering that this matter is pending since the year 2010, this Court did not deem it fit to further adjourn the matter as it would be against the interest of Justice. 8. Shri Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the finding arrived at by the learned Labour Court is unreasonable and Page No.# 6/10 unsustainable in law as there is a wrong observation that no documents were exhibited. In this regard, he has brought the attention of this Court to the pleadings made in paragraphs 13, 14 and 16 of the writ petition, which read as follows: “13. That the petitioner begs to state that the learned Labour Court failed to consider that all the workmen were served with the show cause initially through Peon which they have refused and later on it was sent by registered A/D which also was returned by the Postal Department as refused by them. All the show causes and notices along with their refusal were exhibited before the Labour Court and as such, the findings of the learned Labour Court that MW.1 has not submitted and exhibited any documents to substantiate that the notices were issued to them and that same was not accepted by the workmen is absolutely perverse and not based on the records. In fact, MW.1 has exhibited 462 documents including the envelop which were returned to the Management. The MW.2 was exhibited the attendance register to show the continuous absence of the workmen without leave or permission. The learned Labour Court while passing the impugned Award did not take any note in any of exhibits made by the Management and has most perfunctorily passed the impugned Award and as such, the impugned Award is liable to be set aside and quashed. 14. That the petitioner begs to state that the applications made by the workmen to the Circle Officer for allotment of patta to them which they were occupying inside the garden were exhibited before the learned Labour Court. However, while passing the impugned Award, the learned Labour Court without considering the said exhibits held that since the Page No.# 7/10 workmen claimed that they have not taken over possession of garden land as such, the allegations made against them are not established. This shows total non-application of mind by the learned Labour Court while passing impugned Award and as such, the same is liable to be set aside and quashed. 16. That the Petitioner begs to state that from the deposition of the witnesses and from the documents exhibited, it is clearly evident that the workmen were continuously absent without any leave or permission for long period and that they illegally encroached the garden land and constructed houses thereon and even made the application to concerned Revenue Office for settlement of those plots of land in their favour as such, the findings of the learned Labour Court without discussing any of the document exhibited is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. Failure to consider of the exhibited documents has vitiated the impugned Award as such, the same is liable to be set aside and quashed.” 9. Shri Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is a specific pleading that as many as 462 nos. of documents were exhibited which, however, does not find mention in the impugned Award dated 19.08.2008. He has submitted that the Management could discharge its burden by proving the allegations and only on the ground that the workman's witness was not cross- examined, the impugned findings have been arrived at. He has also submitted that in absence of the original records, he would depend on the pleadings which have been duly verified. He has also placed before this Court a “List of Documents” which was retained by the learned counsel, who had conducted the case before the learned Labour Court. He has however fairly submitted that the Page No.# 8/10 said list is a personal copy without there being any certification. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the written statement of the Management wherein there are averments that notices were indeed issued and there was a refusal to accept the same. 10. Per contra, Shri Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondents has, however, submitted that the projection made in the writ petition does not appear to be correct. He has submitted that in the written statement, there was no specific mention of any documents and it is only in the writ petition an improvement was sought to be made by stating that 462 nos. of documents were indeed exhibited before the learned Labour Court. He has also gone to the merits of the allegation by submitting that the said allegation would not constitute a misconduct of such gravity which would warrant termination from service. He has submitted that in absence of the records, this Court may deem the observations made by the learned Labour Court to be correct and the impugned Award be upheld. He has also pointed out that in the written statement, a specific plea was taken on behalf of the Workmen that there was an earlier Reference pending and during the pendency of the same, the impugned action was taken and this part has not been properly answered by the learned Labour Court. 11. The rival submissions advanced have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have been carefully examined. As noted above, though the records of the learned Labour Court were called for by this Court while admitting this case on 03.03.2010, the records have been misplaced and remain untraceable. Under those circumstances, it would be necessary for this Court to examine the materials on record, including the pleadings in the writ petition. It is however required to be mentioned that the respondents have Page No.# 9/10 not filed any affidavit-in-opposition denying the pleadings of the petitioner in this case. 12. There is a specific pleading in paragraphs 13, 14 and 16 of the writ petition which have been extracted above that there were 462 nos. of documents exhibited which were not considered. As noted above, there is no denial to the said pleadings. This Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction would only be concerned with the decision making process. In other words, this Court would look into the aspect as to whether the relevant factors have been taken into consideration or as to whether extraneous or irrelevant factors have been taken into consideration. 13. It is the specific case of the petitioner - Management that 462 nos. of documents were exhibited which do not find mention in the impugned Award dated 19.08.2008. The aforesaid averment being not denied, this Court do not have any other option but to proceed with the materials placed before this Court. There is also a reference in the written statement of the Management that notices were issued which were refused to be accepted. Under those circumstances, this Court is of the view that the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Naseem Bano vs. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in AIR 1993 SC 2592 will be squarely applicable. In the said case, the Apex Court has laid down that in case averments are not controverted, the High Court can proceed on the basis that the said averments had been admitted by respondents. 14. Though Shri Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondents has attempted to argue on the merits of the case that the order of termination was not justified and the Award is just and proper, this Court is of the view that in exercise of certiorari jurisdiction, this Court would not enter into the merits of Page No.# 10/10 the case, more so, when all the materials are not available before this Court. This Court has also taken note of the fact that while admitting this case, vide the order dated 03.03.2010, there was an order of stay of the impugned Award dated 19.08.2008 and till date, not to talk about any affidavit-in-opposition, even an application for vacating of stay or for invoking Section 17B of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has not been filed. 15. Under those peculiar facts and circumstances, this Court has no other option but to intervene. The impugned Award dated 19.08.2008 passed by the learned Labour Court in Reference Case No.18/2000 is accordingly interfered with and set aside. 16. The writ petition accordingly stands allowed. 17. The records, if any, be sent back to the learned Labour Court. JUDGE Comparing Assistant