Sub-Divisional Engineer vs Sudhakar Bapurao Bhagat
2002 Latest Caselaw 1196 Bom

JUDGMENT

C.K. Thakker, C.J.

1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated November 30, 2001, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1131 of 1991. Admitted. Mr. Choudhari, learned Advocate appears for the respondent-workman and waives service of notice of admission. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been taken up for final hearing.

2. The services of the respondent were terminated by the appellant, as he was rendered surplus due to completion of work of Dham Unnati Dharan. According to the appellant, the respondent-workman was appointed for the said project and as soon as the project was over, his services were no more required. In the circumstances, he could not have claimed any benefit from the appellant-State. In spite of that, the provisions of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") were followed and he was offered retrenchment compensation of Rs. 2310.75. He, however, refused to accept the amount.

3. Being aggrieved by the action of termination of services, the respondent-workman approached the Labour Court. The Labour Court decided the Reference (IDA) No. 158 of 1988 against the respondent, holding that no illegality was committed by the respondent-State and hence the respondent-workman was not entitled to claim any benefit. The Award of the Labour Court was further challenged by the respondent by filing the aforesaid writ petition.

4. The learned Single Judge confirmed the findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court and held that the respondent (present appellant) had not committed any illegality and the provisions of section 25F of the Act were followed. The learned Single Judge also recorded a finding that the amount of retrenchment compensation was offered to the workman but it was not accepted by the respondent-workman.

5. In the operative part of the order, however, the learned Single Judge observed that he was inclined to award reasonable amount of compensation to the workman and accordingly the appellant was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/- to meet the ends of justice.

6. The grievance of the present appellant is that in view of the findings recorded by the Labour Court and confirmed by the learned Single Judge, no such order could have passed by the learned Single Judge.

7. The learned Counsel for the respondent-workman, on the other hand, contended that though the findings of fact have been recorded against the workman, considering the matter in its entirety, an amount of Rs. 25,000/- was ordered to be paid to the workman by the appellant and it may not be interfered by this Court.

8. Having heard the learned Counsel, in our opinion, the Letter Patent Appeal deserves to be allowed. Once it has been held by the Labour Court and confirmed by the learned Single Judge that no illegality had been committed by the appellant-State, in terminating the services of the workman and amount of Rs. 2310.75 had been sent to the workman, but, it was he, who had refused to accept the amount, it cannot be said that the appellant-State was liable to pay any amount to him. In the light of the said finding, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge could not have awarded an amount of compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to the respondent-workman.

9. The Letters Patent Appeal, therefore, deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The order passed by the learned Single Judge, directing the appellant to pay the amount of Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation, is hereby set aside. It is, however, clarified that the respondent-workman would be entitled to Rs. 2310.75, as offered to him in 1987. Let the said amount of Rs. 2310.75 be paid to the respondent-workman within a period of four weeks from today.

10. The Letters Patent Appeal is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs. In view of the order passed in the Letter Patent Appeal, no orders are necessary to be passed on the Civil Application.