*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C)2076/2003
% Date of decision: 10th May, 2010
MANAGEMENT OF M/S ASHOK HOTEL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amit Seth, Advocate
Versus
DELHI ADMINISTRATION & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported No
in the Digest?
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The petitioner employer by this writ petition impugns the award dated 4th April, 2001 of the Labour Court holding the termination by the petitioner employer of the respondents 4(i) Abdul Sayyed, 4(ii) Balwant Singh & 4(iii) Ram Kumar to be bad and directing the petitioner employer to reinstate the respondent no.4 (i) Abdul Sayyed with 50% back wages, respondent no.4 (ii) Balwant Singh with 40% back wages & respondent no.4 (iii) Ram Kumar without any back wages.
2. This Court vide order dated 21st March, 2003 while issuing notice of the petition stayed the operation of the award subject to the petitioner WP(C) 2076/2003 Page 1 of 5 employer depositing a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- in this Court which was directed to be kept in the fixed deposit. The counsel for the petitioner employer states that the said amount was so deposited. Though initially the counsel for all the three respondent workmen appeared before this Court but the application under Section 17B of the I.D. Act was filed on behalf of respondent no.4 (ii) Balwant Singh & respondent no.4(iii) Ram Kumar only and similarly the counter affidavit to the writ petition is supported by the affidavits of the respondent no.4(ii) Balwant Singh & respondent no.4(iii) Ram Kumar only. However, I find that the Vakalatnama of the advocate is on behalf of all the three respondent workmen. Vide order dated 30th November, 2005, the applications of the respondent no.4 (ii) Balwant Singh & respondent no.4 (iii) Ram Kumar under Section 17B of the I.D. Act were allowed and the petitioner employer was directed to pay to the said respondents last drawn wages / minimum wages whichever is higher with effect from the date of the award i.e. 4 th April, 2001 onwards. The counsel for the petitioner employer states that the payment has been so made. The same was of course subject to the said respondents 4(ii) & 4(iii) refunding to the petitioner employer the excess amount, if any, received over and above the last drawn wages in the event of this petition succeeding. Rule was issued in the writ petition on 18th September, 2006.
3. None has appeared today for the contesting respondent workmen inspite of pass over. They are proceeded against ex parte. WP(C) 2076/2003 Page 2 of 5
4. The counsel for the petitioner employer has drawn attention to order dated 16th April, 2010 in WP(C) No.6686/2003 also preferred by the petitioner employer with respect to an award in favour of certain other workmen. The said award was for reinstatement with full back wages in favour of five workmen and reinstatement with 75% back wages in favour of the sixth workman. The counsel for the petitioner employer states that the dispute of the petitioner employer with the contesting respondent workmen herein is same as the dispute between the petitioner employer with the contesting respondents in WP(C) No.6686/2003 decided on 16th April, 2010. The award in favour of the contesting respondents in WP(C) No.6686/2003 was modified from that of reinstatement and back wages to that of payment of a lumpsum amount of Rs.2,50,000/- in favour of each of the workmen made payable within six weeks thereof.
5. Though the said order dated 16th April, 2010 was with the consent of the counsel for the respondent workmen in that case but considering the fact that the workmen in both the cases were daily wagers and similarly placed, I see no reason for a different view in the present case. However, in WP(C) No.6686/2003 there was no order under Section 17B of the I.D. Act and the respondent workmen in lieu of lumpsum payment of Rs.2,50,000/- had also given up their claims under Section 17B of the I.D. Act. In the present case, the respondent no.4(ii) & respondent no.4(iii) have received payments under Section 17B of the I.D. Act for WP(C) 2076/2003 Page 3 of 5 approximately nine years and which payments would be in excess of Rs.3,00,000/-. Also, in WP(C) No.6686/2003, the award was for full back wages; in the present case as aforesaid, the award is for 50% or 40% or no back wages.
6. Accordingly, the award impugned in the present writ petition is modified as under:
(i) The respondent no.4 (i) Abdul Sayyed, the award in whose favour was for reinstatement with 50% back wages and who has not received any payment under Section 17B of the I.D. Act, shall be entitled to lumpsum payment of Rs.1,75,000/- from the petitioner in lieu of reinstatement, back wages etc.
(ii) The respondent no.4(ii) Balwant Singh, the award in whose favour is for reinstatement with 40% back wages and who as aforesaid has received over Rs.3,00,000/- under Section 17B of the I.D. Act, shall be entitled to lumpsum payment of Rs.50,000/- from the petitioner in lieu of reinstatement, back wages etc.
(iii) The respondent no.4(iii) Ram Kumar, the award in whose favour is for reinstatement without any back wages and who also under Section 17B of the I.D. Act has received payment WP(C) 2076/2003 Page 4 of 5 of Rs.3,00,000/-, shall be entitled to lumpsum payment of Rs.30,000/- from the petitioner in lieu of reinstatement, back wages etc.
7. The aforesaid amounts be paid within six weeks of today. If the payment is not made within six weeks, the petitioner employer shall also incur 7% simple interest. It is clarified that the aforesaid compensation is in full and final settlement and in lieu of claims of the aforesaid respondent workmen for back wages, reinstatement or otherwise and on receipt of the said amounts the aforesaid respondent workmen shall be left with no claims whatsoever against the petitioner employer.
8. The petitioner employer, upon making the aforesaid payments shall be entitled to refund of Rs.1,50,000/- deposited in this Court together with interest, if any, accrued thereon.
The writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) 10th May, 2010 gsr WP(C) 2076/2003 Page 5 of 5