Sh. Salamuddin vs The Presiding Officer Labour ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 1527 Del

*            THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                    Writ Petition (Civil) No.3373/2006

                                          Date of Decision : 20.4.2009

SH. SALAMUDDIN                                    ......Petitioner
                                     Through : Mr.Gajender Giri,
                                     Advocate.


                                 Versus

THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT-V & ANR.
                                      ...... Respondents
                          Through : Nemo

CORAM :
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. (Oral)

1. The petitioner in the present writ petition has challenged

the award dated 6th September, 2003 passed by the learned

Labour Court in ID No.76/1988 titled The Management of M/s

Trend Setter Vs. Workman Sh.Salamuddin. By virtue of the

aforesaid award, the learned Labour Court though came to the

conclusion that the services of the petitioner were terminated

illegally and unjustifiably on 28th June,1986, however, instead of

granting the benefit of reinstatement with full back wages, the

learned Labour Court granted the petitioner one time

compensation of Rs.20,000/-.

2. Respondent has not appeared despite the service of notice

nor any counter affidavit has been filed.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

perused the record. The challenge laid by the petitioner to the

award is only limited to the extent of quantum of compensation

which has been granted to the petitioner.

4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that although the learned Labour Court has held the

termination of the petitioner to be illegal and unjustified w.e.f.

28.6.1986 but instead of granting him reinstatement and

payment of back wages, the petitioner has been granted a sum of

Rs.20,000/- as compensation. It was contended that this

amount of compensation of Rs.20,000/- has taken into

consideration that the petitioner had rendered two years of

service with the respondent while as the factum of the unserved

portion of the service was not taken into account. It was

contended that if that portion of unserved service which was

taken into account, the amount of compensation ought to have

been much higher.

5. I have considered the submission made by the learned

counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned award.

The learned Labour has taken two factors into consideration in

the light of the judgments relied upon. These two factors are

essentially the factors that the petitioner was working as a Tailor

with the respondent and his total tenure of service was little over

two years. He was getting wages of Rs.900/- per month. It had

also been proved on record by the respondent that the unit where

the petitioner was purportedly working had been closed w.e.f. 1st

July, 1999. Therefore, in the light of the factum of closure and

the factum of the petitioner having worked only for a period of

approximately little over two years as a Tailor and the possibility

of the petitioner being unemployed even for the period from the

date of alleged illegal termination till the award was passed, the

learned Labour Court had granted a compensation of

Rs.20,000/-.

6. This Court feels that the basis of arriving at compensation

by the learned Labour Court cannot be found fault with. All

these three factors are tantamounting to fair factors relevant in

assessing compensation.

7. The total quantum of service rendered by the petitioner

was very short one. The wages were just Rs.900/- and he was a

skilled worker as a Tailor who are always in great demand.

Therefore, even though the learned Labour Court came to a

conclusion that the termination of the respondent /workman

was illegal, it is highly improbable that even after termination,

the respondent/workman must have remained unemployed. The

amount of compensation, which has been paid to the petitioner

is Rs.20,000/-, which is almost equal to two years wages.

Therefore, this Court is of the view that the quantum of

compensation which has been granted is just, fair but is also

reasonable. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been

able to cite any judgment wherein even in a case of this nature,

the portion of service for which the workman would have

continued to work would be a ground to be taken into account to

pay the compensation. This Court, therefore, feels that there is

no illegality or perversity in the award passed by the learned

Labour Court. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed

and the award of the learned Labour Court is upheld.

No order as to costs.

V.K. SHALI, J.

APRIL 20, 2009 RN