Dismissed workers of Baghjan TE face hurdle to get bonus

From a Correspondent

Dibrugarh, Dec 29: The 40 dismissed tea workers of Baghjan Tea Estate, who assaulted the Mager of the TE, are till date being deprived of the bonus due for the year 1983-84.  The Assam Tea Workers Union (ATWU) parallel to the assault case had raised the issue of non-payment of legitimate bonus to the dismissed workers, as the magement refused to pay the same, stating the case to be barred by limitation. The magement further stated that if there were any unpaid bonus, the same was deposited with the Welfare Board.

In reference to the above, the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Tinsukia, BC Deka, had forwarded a copy with reference letter No.LD.7/2015/8433/, Dated-27/08/15, on the subject of issue of pending Bonus to the Labour Commissioner, Assam.

In the forwarded letter, the Assistant Commissioner has requested the Labour Commissioner to take necessary action for releasing the bonus along with interest due on the principal amount for delayed payment against the magement of Baghjan TE, Doomdoma, from the date of dismissal (4-9-1984) to the date of payment of the bonus as per the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965.

The letter contains the issues on which payment of bonus stands as whether all the 40 dismissed workers as listed and the amount of bonus estimated against each are entitled for bonus and for the interest as decided by the authority for delayed payment of bonus and whether the magement is bound to pay the same? Second, if not, what relief the workers should get in lieu of bonus/interest on the principal bonus amount due and lastly, if there is the possibility of any other relief.

The question of limitation as stated by the magement,as the letter states, does not apply as the matter has been insisted from the beginning after the workers dismissal. But the magement failed to settle the bonus issue and to clarify their position in terms of the claim of Rs 2, 80,000 of bonus with interest to the 40 dismissed workers along with the interest on the principal amount for delayed payment. The magement failed to settle the case on different pleas that reflected their vindictive attitude and an act of violation of the provision of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965.