Delhi High Court
Shri Tirloki Nath vs Shri Dharam Paul Arora And Anr. on 7 March, 2006
Author: M Katju
Bench: M Katju, S Khanna
JUDGMENT
Markandeya Katju, C.J.
1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 19.9.2005 by which he has dismissed the writ petition.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. The petitioner had filed the writ petition praying for quashing of the award of the Industrial Tribunal-III, Delhi dated 20.12.1995 annexure 'A' to the writ petition.
4. The petitioner/appellant was in the service of the respondent employer. He alleged that his service was illegally terminated and hence he raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication.
5. The Tribunal framed an issue whether the workman had himself abandoned his employment and deserted his duties. On this issue, the Tribunal found that during the conciliation proceedings which took place prior to the adjudication an offer had been made by the employer to the workman to join duty but he had refused. In these circumstances, the Tribunal observed that no purpose will be served by passing an order of reinstatement and instead he directed that compensation to be paid.
6. Against that award the writ petition was filed, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge and hence this appeal.
7. In our opinion, there is no merit in this appeal since the petitioner/appellant failed to join duty when a specific offer had been made during the conciliation proceedings. Hence, it is obvious that he is himself to blame.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the workman was willing to join duty in the scale of skilled worker. In this connection, it may be stated that the appellant was admittedly working as a helper and was drawing a salary of Rs. 750/- P.M. He was paid a salary in the presence of the Labour Inspector who visited the office of the management on 10.8.1989. The petitioner never raised any protest while receiving the salary and to his designation being shown as a helper.
9. In our opinion, the appellant should have joined duty when it was offered to him during conciliation proceedings, but evidently he was not prepared to join as a helper but on a higher grade.
10. The petitioner/appellant could have joined as a helper under protest if he was of the opinion that he was entitled to a higher designation/salary but he did not do so. In similar circumstances the Supreme Court in Central P & D Inst. Ltd. v. Union of India held that compensation should be granted instead of reinstatement.
11. In U.P.State Brassware Corporation Ltd. and Anr. v. Uday Narain Pandey , the Supreme Court modified the earlier principle that on illegal termination ordinarily the rule is to grant reinstatement with full back wages. In paras 49-50 of the said judgment the Supreme Court observed that the Court has discretion to grant compensation instead of reinstatement and it referred to its earlier decisions on this question.
12. Hence, there is no force in this appeal and it is dismissed.
