Haryana Minerals Limited vs Rajinder Kumar
2009 Latest Caselaw 1289 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                        W.P.(C) NO. 7186/2006
%                                      Reserved on : 22.1.2009
                                  Date of Decision : 09.04.2009

HARYANA MINERALS LIMITED                            .... Petitioner

                      Through Mr. Arvind Nayar, Advocate

                               Versus

RAJINDER KUMAR                                      .... Respondent

                      Through None


HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

1.    Whether reporters of Local papers may be
      allowed to see the judgment?                         YES
2.    To be referred to the reporter or not?               NO
3.    Whether the judgment should be reported in
      the Digest?                                          NO


V. K. SHALI, J.

*

1. The petitioner has challenged the award dated 11th February,

2005 in ID No. 36/1995 passed by the, Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Rajendra Bhawan, Rajindra Place, New

Delhi in case titled Rajinder Kumar Vs. The Secretary, Haryana

Minerals Ltd., Nizampur Road, Narnuli, District Mahendargarh,

Haryana. By the impugned award the termination of services of the

respondent/workman Rajinder Kumar who was a daily rated worker

w.e.f. 1st November, 1991 with the petitioner/management was held

neither to be legal nor justified. But instead of directing the

reinstatement of the workman the Ld. Presiding Officer of the Tribunal

directed the payment of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the

respondent/workman within a period of one month of the publication of

award failing which it was directed that he shall be further entitled to

get 12% interest per annum on the entire back wages.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the

respondent/workman is stated to have been employed by the

petitioner/management as a daily rated worker w.e.f. 1st July, 1989 in

the branch office of Haryana Minerals Ltd. District Bhiwani, Haryana.

The respondent/workman has stated that his conduct during the

service tenure was satisfactory yet no formal letter was ever issued to

him in respect of terminating his services. It is alleged by him that he

reported for duty till 11th November, 1991 on which date he was told

verbally that his services were no longer required. By that date he had

rendered service of more than 240 days in a year, and accordingly, he

was entitled to protection under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He

challenged the termination of his services as being illegal and

unjustified because of which the Ministry of Labour, Central

Government vide letter dated 2nd March, 1995 referred the following

dispute to the Central Government, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court in the following terms where:

"Whether the action of the management of M/s Haryana Minerals Limited in terminating the services of Shri Rajinder Kumar, Ex. Daily paid labour w.e.f. 01.11.1991 is legal and justified? If not to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date?"

3. The petitioner/management took a plea that the

respondent/workman was working with the petitioner/management in

the mines, but he of his own stopped reporting for duty w.e.f. 31st

October, 1991. On account of this unauthorized and continuous

desertion from the workplace his name was removed from the rolls of

the miners.

4. Both the sides adduced their respective evidence whereupon the

Tribunal instead of accepting the version given by the

petitioner/management that the respondent/workman had not reported

for duty from 31st October, 1991 came to the conclusion that the

services of the respondent/workman were illegally and unjustifiably

terminated from the service in gross violation of Section 25(F) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, as the petitioner/management

had filed an affidavit that the Haryana Minerals Ltd. has been closed,

therefore, the Ld. Tribunal instead of granting the reinstatement and

payment of back wages in its wisdom directed the

petitioner/management to be paid compensation of Rs. 50,000/-.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/management.

After the judgment was reserved, and accordingly, the

respondent/workman had also appeared and sought permission to

place on record the written submissions. I have considered the record

and gone through the written submission filed on behalf of the

respondent/workman.

6. The first contention which has been raised by the learned counsel

for the petitioner/management is to the effect that the Central

Government Tribunal at Delhi did not have the jurisdiction. Though

this point was raised, however, the learned counsel for the

petitioner/management did not strenuously urged this point.

7. I do not find any force in this submission of the learned counsel

for the petitioner/management that since the petitioner/management

was having its area of operation in District Mahendargarh, Haryana,

and therefore, this Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction. A perusal of

the petition filed by the petitioner/management itself shows that

appropriate Government in the case of the respondent/workman was

the Central Government. The conciliation proceedings were started

before Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer at Bhiwani, Haryana. The

demand note cum representation was made by the

respondent/workman to Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central),

Sonipat Road, Rohtak who had referred the matter to the Secretary,

Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi. As the

conciliation proceedings had failed, therefore, the Central Government

being the appropriate government referred the matter to the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court-II which obviously

was sitting in Delhi, therefore, I feel that there is no merit in this

submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner/management.

8. The next point which has been urged by the learned counsel for

the petitioner/management is that the learned Labour Court has come

to a finding that the respondent/workman had served the

petitioner/management for a period of 240 days between the period 8th

July 1989 to 30th October, 1991 and since his services were not

dispensed with in accordance with the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

therefore, he was granted compensation. It was also contended that the

petitioner unit where the services of the respondent/workman were

being availed were in the mining activity as a unskilled labourer. The

mining activity having been banned, the services of the

respondent/workman could not be gainfully utilized, therefore, even if

the compensation was to be awarded to the respondent/workman in

lieu of the reinstatement there ought to have been some formula

followed by the learned Labour Court. However, the learned Labour

Court has randomly given a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation in

lieu of the reinstatement of the non regularization of the services of the

respondent/workman on account of closure of the unit.

9. So far as the written submissions filed by the

respondent/workman are concerned they have justified the grant of

quantum of compensation to the respondent/workman. Reliance was

sought to be placed on case titled Ghaziabad Development Authority

Vs. Vikram Choudhary & Ors. 1995 (71) FLR 463. I have gone

through the said authority cited by the respondent/workman, however,

the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The

principle enunciated in the said authority is the principle of last come

first go and the payment of same wages to the temporary daily wage

employees as are being paid under the Minimum Wages Act or

prevailing wages in the locality. None of these issues is involved in the

present writ petition. It is also not in dispute that the unit where the

services of the respondent/workman were availed has since been

closed. The only question which arises for consideration is whether the

learned Labour Court was justified in granting a compensation of

Rs.50,000/- and if so what was the formula or the yardstick followed by

it.

10. A perusal of the judgment shows that no such formula has been

followed by the learned Labour Court in arriving at the figure of

Rs.50,000/-. It seems to have been given randomly, therefore, in my

considered opinion the said amount of Rs.50,000/- seems to be

suffering from the vice of arbitrariness.

11. Admittedly in the instant case the respondent/workman was

employed as an unskilled worker and his services even if we hold to be

terminated illegally, he had rendered only 240 days service in a

calendar year prior to that. The quantum of wages which he was

getting per day or per month has not been specified either in the

statement of claim or any other document filed by the petitioner. The

present minimum wages for an unskilled labourer is about Rs.200/- or

so per day in Delhi. Taking that as a base, in the year 1991 and that

too in the area of Bhiwani, Haryana the minimum wages in 1991 in the

month of October would be have been somewhere around Rs.100/-.

The respondent/workman at best would have been earning Rs.3000/-

per month or so which would come to Rs.36,000/- per annum and for

240 days around Rs.24,000/-. Therefore, I am of the considered

opinion that a sum of Rs. 25,000/- would be sufficient compensation in

lieu of the reinstatement as has been observed by the learned Labour

Court. For the reasons mentioned above, I accordingly, modify the

award dated 11th February, 2005 partially on the question of quantum

of compensation and reduce the same from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.25,000/-

as being just, fair and reasonable to be given to the

respondent/workman.

12. With these observations the writ petition stands disposed of. No

order as to costs.

APRIL 9th, 2009                                            V.K. SHALI, J.
KP