Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 12 (CAL)

Kartick Prodhan v. Satyendra Nath Ghosh

2000-01-05

Prabir Kumar Samanta

body2000
Judgment Prabir Kumar Samanta, J. This contempt application is for alleged violation of the order dated 23.11.98 passed by this court in Writ Petition No. 21196(W) of 1998. By the said order this court directed the concerned respondent authorities to consider the case of the writ petitioners for regularisation and/or permanent absorption of the writ petitioners in Group 'D' posts in the Panchayat Samity. 2. Originally the petitioners were engaged for collecting tolls for paddy, vegetables and fruits which landed at a ghat under Canning-I Panchayat Samity at a remuneration of Rs.8.10 per day payable on monthly basis. Such engagement was made sometime in the year 1980 on purely temporary basis with the stipulation that the same would be terminated without any notice. 3. The petitioners moved a writ petition for regularisation of their services against appropriate posts under Panchayat Samity. This court by an order dated 10.3.87 directed the concerned authorities to consider the case of the writ petitioners. 4. Since such consideration was not made by the authority concerned, so a further writ petition was moved. The later writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 23.11.98 with the observation that if the representation of the writ petitioners is not disposed of within a period of four months from the date of communication of the said order, then the writ petitioner would be deemed to be the regular and/or permanent employees in their respective posts under Panchayat Samity. It was further directed that the writ petitioners would be paid minimum wages for the work performed by them as determined by the State Government under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act pending disposal as above by the authority concerned. 5. Pursuant to the said order of this court, the authority concerned took up the matter for consideration and disposed of the same by an order dated 3.3.99. It was categorically observed therein that the writ petitioners were originally engaged for collecting tolls for vegetables, fruits and paddy at a landing ghat at Harighat locally known as Canning Port ghat, but such ferry service in the said ghat had stopped since 1993-94 due to shifting of the river course from the place where the said ferry ghat was located. However, ferry service upon such shifting continued at a ghat at Canning which is about 500 meters away from ferry ghat at Harighat is under control and supervision of the Zilla Parishad at present. The new ferry service at the ghat at Canning was leased out to a private person by the Zilla Parishad and as such the petitioners had no authority and were not engaged for collection of tolls on fruits, vegetables and paddy at the new ghat at Canning since 1993-94. 6. Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that the petitioners forceably collected tolls from the public at the ghat at Canning over and above the tolls realised by the private person with whom the said ghat was leased out by the Zilla Parishad. It is also a fact that such collections were accepted by the Panchayat Samity and the petitioners were paid at the rate at which they were engaged as above in the year1980. 7. The authority concerned upon consideration of all the facts and circumstances as above came to the conclusion that the petitioners were engaged for a specified purpose of collection of toll from a ferry ghat which was under the management of Pane hay at Samity and therefore upon cessation of collection of toll at a ferry ghat under the management of Pane hay at Samity, they were not entitled to permanent absorption and/or regularisation of their services. Accordingly, their prayer for regularisation and/or permanent absorption in any suitable post in the Panchayat Samity was rejected. 8. Without going into the merits of the aforesaid order it could be said that the concerned respondent authority disposed of the representation of the writ petitioners for permanent absorption and/or for regularisation of their services in any suitable post under Panchayat Samity finally, and accordingly there was substantial compliance of the order of this court dated 23.11.98. 9. The said order at best gave rise to a fresh cause of action to the writ petitioners to challenge the same but it never amounted to violation of the order of the court and/or the wilful disregard of the same. 10. This court by the said order dated 23.11.1998 directed that the petitioner would be paid minimum wages for the work performed by them as determined by the State Government under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act. 10. This court by the said order dated 23.11.1998 directed that the petitioner would be paid minimum wages for the work performed by them as determined by the State Government under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act. But upon reading of the scheduled employment in West Bengal within the scope of minimum wages, it appears that the Panchayat Samity did not come within the meaning of the local authorities under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. 11. Accordingly, there being no minimum wages for the work performed by the writ petitioners as per the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, nonpayment thereof did not amount to contempt for alleged violation of the said order of this court. 12. I, therefore, do not find any merit in the contempt application, the same is therefore rejected. However, it is observed that the petitioners will be at liberty to challenge the order of disposal dated 3.3.99 made by the Executive Officer, Panchayat Samity, South 24-Parganas in an appropriate forum in accordance with the provisions of law upon reference to the relevant circular and/or memorandum issued in this regard by the Government of West Bengal. 13. It is also made clear that the petitioners will be entitled to the daily wages at the rate at which they were engaged for the period for which they performed their duties and the respondent Panchayat Samity accepted deposits from the writ petitioners. Such payment should be made by the authority concerned expeditiously and preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. 14. If urgent xerox certified copy of this order is applied for by the parties, the same should be given as expeditiously as possible. Contempt application rejected.