JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS, J. - (1.) THE petitioner in this WP under art.226 dated February 9, 2012 is questioning an award of the Labour Court, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Port Blair dated August 30, 2011 (WP p.165) answering the reference concerned in the affirmative.
(2.) THE award was made in an ID Case No.3 of 2001 that the Labour Court registered on receipt of an order of reference dated August 2, 2001 made by the Andaman & Nicobar Administration under s.10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The issue referred for adjudication was as follows: - " Whether the demand of 47 daily rated mazdoors (Annexure A) represented by the Secretary, A and N Wild Life Workers Union, Port Blair to the Deputy Conservator of Forests (Wildlife) for extending the pay benefit to them in accordance with the Govt. of India, Department of Personnel and Training OM No.49014/2/86 -Estt. ((THELAW)) dated 7.6.88 at the rate of 1/30th of the pay plus dearness allowance for day 's work of eight hours at the minimum of the same nature of work is legal and entitled ? If so, what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to ? " Mr. Mandal appearing for the petitioner submits that without stating how the claim of the workmen had been established and what made them entitled to the financial benefits they were claiming, the Labour Court casually passed a cryptic award. Mr. Kumar appearing for the respondent finds little to say in justification of the award. He has said that the workmen concerned are the only sufferers. It is evident from the award of the Labour Court that the award was passed without discussing the evidence given by the parties to the reference in proof of their respective cases. I think it will be appropriate to quote the relevant parts of the award of the Labour Court.
(3.) THE Labour Court first said as follows: - "To substantiate the claim, Mr. K.R. Pandi deposed on behalf of 1st party workmen. In his affidavit in chief he has narrated the grievance in such way as if it is the replica of statements of demands. In course of cross examination. 2nd party workmen failed to elicit anything which could help the 2nd party. At the time of argument, 1st party workmen referred to a decision passed in connection with Industrial Disputes (L.C.) case no. 4/97 by my Ld. Predecessor in office which was based on the judgment of Hon 'ble Apex court (passed in C/W WP 59/60 and 563 -70/83 dated 17.1.86). " ;