Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) this writ application is at the instance of an employer and is directed against an award dated november 15, 1999 passed by the central government industrial tribunal at calcutta in reference no. 6 of 1998. The following disputes were referred to the tribunal: "whether the action of the management of the farakka barrage project in not regularising 540 muster roll workers and thus denying them equal pay for equal work and other facilities, which regular workmen are enjoying is justified? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled?"
(2.) the tribunal, by the award impugned herein, answered the disputes in favour of the employees thereby directing the management to regularise the services of the concerned workmen with effect from the date of granting them the grade and scale of pay in 1987. The management was further directed to grant all benefits available to the regular workers working in the same post in the establishment from the date of regularisation of service. As out of 540 concerned workmen, some had retired and some had died, the award further ordained that all benefits arising out of such regularisation should be available to them or their successors, as the case might be.
(3.) the union filed written statement before the tribunal thereby taking the following defences: a) farakka barrage employed a large number of workmen in different categories during the year 1976 including the concerned workmen and those workmen had been doing the perennial nature of job for the last 20 years continuously since their respective dates of appointment. b) the barrage authority in view of the aforesaid fact brought the concerned workmen under casual labourer (grant of temporary status of regularisation) scheme of government of india with effect from september 1, 1993 in the scale of pay 750-12-870-eb-14-940 which was revised as per recommendation of 5th central pay commission and the same was in the scale of rs. 2,500-3,200.00 on such revision. c) the management though granted the concerned workmen the aforesaid pay scale but denied them the other benefits as admissible in law and kept them in muster roll/temporary roll without regularising those appointments. d) those workmen were entitled like other permanent workmen of their category to the benefits like medical, insurance, provident fund, gratuity, pension, compensatory allowance, overtime allowance, liveries etc. But the management had been depriving them of those benefits without assigning any reason whatsoever. e) during last few years, a number of muster roll workmen died in harness and some retired, but the management neither gave the legal heirs any retirement benefit nor did it confer any other family benefit to those persons. f) the action of the management in not regularising the concerned workmen amounted to discrimination and exploitation of human labour taking advantage of poverty and compelling circumstances.;