Sh. Paras vs M/S Lovely Ticket Wala
2009 Latest Caselaw 1549 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                          W.P.(C) NO. 8979/2006

                         Date of Decision: 21.04.2009
%

Sh. Paras                                               .... Petitioner

                     Through : Mr. B.Patnaik, Advocate

                                  Versus

M/s Lovely Ticket Wala                                  .... Respondent

                     Through : Mr.R.P.Gupta, Advocate for respondent
                               no.2.
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?                     YES
3.    Whether the judgment should be reported in
      the Digest?                                                YES

V. K. SHALI, J. (Oral)

*

1. The petitioner in the instant writ petition has challenged the

award dated 13th January, 2005 passed by the learned Labour Court

No.VIII in ID No. 1126/2000 in the case titled Sh. Paras Vs. M/s

Lovely Ticket Wala, (Aar Kay Printers) only to the limited extent of

quantum of compensation which is directed to be paid to the petitioner.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a reference was made

by the appropriate government to the learned Labour Court:

"Whether the services of Sh. Paras have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management, and if so, to what relief is he

entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"

3. On the basis of the aforesaid reference, the petitioner filed his

statement of claim claiming that he was employed as a Machine

Operator for monthly wages of Rs.3000/- and in 1999 when the

petitioner demanded increase in salary, overtime, earned leave and

other benefits, the respondent got annoyed and terminated the services

of the petitioner illegally and unjustifiably on 3rd August, 1999. A

demand notice dated 31st August, 1999 was sent by the petitioner to

the respondent but since it did not yield any result, and thereafter, a

reference was made to the learned Labour Court.

4. The respondent filed its written statement and contested the

claim of the petitioner by raising an objection that there is no

relationship of employer and employee between the parties. In addition

to this, it was alleged that the petitioner was granted service on the

temporary basis and since his work was not satisfactory, therefore, on

or about 25th to 27th July 1999, he was asked to leave the service.

Further, the petitioner had indulged in acts of misbehavior on or about

25th to 27th July, 1999. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings

following issues were framed, namely:

(i) Whether there is no relationship of employer and employee between the parties? OPM

(ii) As per terms of reference.

5. The parties adduced their respective evidence and the learned

Labour Court decided both the issues in favour of the petitioner holding

that the petitioner was able to establish the relationship of employer

and employees between the parties. It was established by him that he

had worked for 240 days in a year. The learned Labour Court also

came to a finding that the petitioner was getting Rs. 2,400/- and was

employed as a Machine Man by the respondent w.e.f. 3rd October, 1993

and his services were not dispensed with in compliance with the Labour

Laws, therefore, the termination was held to be illegal and unjustifiable.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is

that the quantum of compensation of Rs.45,000/- which has been

awarded by the learned Labour Court is grossly inadequate. It has been

urged that the petitioner has worked with the respondent for almost six

years, and therefore, even from the date of termination i.e. 3rd August,

1999 when his services are terminated till the time of award i.e. on 13th

January, 2005 if the amount of compensation is calculated @ of

Rs.3000/- per month, it would turn out to be Rs.1,97,000/-. As

against this, the learned counsel for the respondent has not able to

refute or formulate any proposition or any yardstick on the basis of

which the compensation should be awarded to the petitioner.

8. The petitioner is not able to show any authoritative

pronouncement with regard to formula which ought to be followed for

calculation of compensation. The same has been done randomly by the

learned Labour Court keeping in view the various factors of the case in

different reported cases. In the instant case also an amount of

Rs.45,000/- has been awarded to the petitioner which is practically two

years salary to the petitioner. The yardstick which has been set up by

the petitioner for grant of compensation from the date of termination till

the date of the award does not seem to be a sound basis for giving the

compensation payable to the petitioner because his total service with

the respondent has been just two years. The quantum of wages, the

number of years of service rendered by the petitioner should primarily

be the factors which must be considered by the learned Labour Court to

decide the compensation. If these factors are taken into consideration

then the amount of Rs.45,000/- which is paid as compensation to the

petitioner practically turn out to be the wages calculated @ Rs.2400/-

per month approximately for a period of two years which seems to be

just, fair and reasonable. Keeping in view the fact that he has served

the respondent for two years or so, this direction for payment of

compensation has been made by the learned Labour Court below.

Further, once the discretion is exercised under Section 11A of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the learned Labour Court below, it will

not be appropriate and justified for the writ court to sit as Court below

and re-appreciate the compensation passed by the learned Labour

Court, unless and until some perversity is shown in the order.

9. Further, there are reported case where the Apex Court has given

as low compensation as Rs.10,000/- to Rs.30,000/-. In the facts of

those case, reliance in this regard is placed on Nagar Mahapalika Vs.

State of U.P. AIR 2006 SC 2113, Branch Manager, M.P. State Agro

Industries Development Corporation Ltd. & Anr. Vs. S.C. Pandey

2006 (2) SCALE 619 and I.T.C. Monghyr, Bihar VS. Presiding

Officer, Labour Court, Patna, Bihar 1978 (3) SCC 504.

10. For the foregoing reasons mentioned above, I do not find any

illegality, perversity or any violation of rule and regulation of principle of

natural justice, and therefore, the writ petition is dismissed and the

validity of the payment of compensation of Rs.45,000/- is upheld. The

respondent is directed to pay the aforesaid compensation of

Rs.45,000/- within a period of four weeks from today, failing which an

interest @ 7% per month be paid to the petitioner.

No order as to costs.

APRIL 21, 2009                                               V.K. SHALI, J.
KP