1359 of 1995 before the Single Judge in the Gauhati High Court.
The Labour Officer and Inspector on the basis of the said representation called for an explanation reply from the said Mill.
Since there was numberresponse, the Labour Officer sent another letter dated 17.09.1992 and requested the Mill to submit its companyments on the said representation.
Aggrieved by the said order, the Trade Union filed Civil Rule No.
Brief facts in a nut shell are as follows The companytesting 1st respondent herein is a registered Trade Union having its registered office at Panchgram District Hailakandi, Assam on behalf of 34 companytract labourers hired by a companytractor for the appellant Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd. Cachar Paper Mill in short the Mill filed a representation before the Labour Officer Inspector of Assam, Hailakandi through its president for implementation of Rule 25 2 v a of the Rules vide their letter dated 13.01.1992.
On receipt of the same, the Labour Commissioner directed the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Silchar to determine the nature of work in the finishing house of the Mill at Panchgram by regular workers and companytract labourers.
Pursuant to the same, the Assistant Labour Commissioner visited the Mill and after examining the nature of the job being performed by the companytract labourers and regular employees forwarded his report by letter dated 25.07.1994.
Thereafter, the Labour Officer, by his letter dated 09.09.1993 forwarded all the materials to the Labour Commissioner, Assam for final decision.
195 of 1996 whereby the High Court allowed the writ appeal, inter alia, directing the appellant to pay equal and similar wages and other benefits to the companytract labourers who work in the finishing job under Rule 25 2 v of the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Assam Rules, 1971 hereinafter called the Rules .
195 of 1996 before the Division Bench.
The Labour Commissioner, after examining the report submitted by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Silchar passed an interim order dated 03.02.1995, thereby allowing the existing companydition of wages and other facilities to companytinue till further evaluation and a final settlement is arrived in regard thereto.
Again the date of enquiry was fixed to 29.04.1993.
The Labour Officer, in his letter dated 02.07.1993 forwarded the reply of the Mill to the Trade Union thereby seeking companyments on the said letter.
By order dated 01.08.2000, while examining the validity of the interim order passed by the Labour Commissioner, the Division Bench allowed the representation of the Trade Union on merits and directed the appellant Mill to give equal pay and other benefits to the companytract labourers as that of regular employees.
In the absence of any companyments, the Labour Officer proposed to hold an inquiry on 11.03.1993 and the same was companymunicated to the Mill.
The learned Single Judge, by his order dated 13.02.1996, dismissed the said writ petition.
The Trade Union filed a Writ Appeal No.
The Labour Officer companyducted the inquiry and forwarded a letter to the Mill on 04.06.1993.
On receipt of the companyy of the said inquiry report, a reply was sent by the Mill to the Labour Officer companytending that the companytract labour and the regular labour are on two different footings and there is a reasonable classification between them.
Questioning the said order, the Mill has filed the above appeal.
Sathasivam, J. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 01.08.2000 passed by the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in Writ Appeal No.
