Shyam Narain vs M/S. Ashwani Plastics
2009 Latest Caselaw 2720 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                 W.P.(C) No. 10232/2009

%                 Date of Decision: 20th July, 2009


# SHYAM NARAIN                            ..... PETITIONER
!            Through: Mr. M.N. Singh, Advocate.

                               VERSUS

$ M/S ASHWANI PLASTICS                       .....RESPONDENT

^             Through: Mr. V.K. Kalra, Advocate.

CORAM:
Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL

1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? NO

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NO

S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) This writ petition filed by the workman (petitioner herein) is

directed against an award dated 11.12.2007 passed by Mr. N.K. Kaushik,

Presiding Officer, Labour Court-VI, Delhi by which an amount of Rs.

60,000/- has been awarded to the petitioner as compensation in lieu of

his claim for reinstatement and back wages.

2. Mr. V.K. Kalra accepts notice of this petition on behalf of the

management/respondent.

3. Heard.

4. Mr. M.N. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

workman (petitioner herein) contends that the petitioner having worked

for more than 26 years with the respondent management prior to his

termination was entitled to gratuity and other terminal benefits and

according to him, the impugned award has not taken care of the

components of gratuity and other terminal benefits admissible to the

workman at the time his services were illegally dispensed with. He,

therefore, submits that the amount of Rs. 60,000/- awarded by the Court

below in favour of workman is quite inadequate and, therefore, he

requests that the compensation amount may be enhanced in the present

proceedings.

5. Mr. Kalra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the management

says that his client disputes the period for which the petitioner had

allegedly worked with the management. Mr. V.K. Kalra further submits

that this petition is otherwise barred by delay and latches as the said

petition has been filed after 1½ years of passing of the impugned award.

6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the counsel for the

parties. In my opinion, the impugned award insofar as it has awarded

Rs. 60,000/- as compensation to the workman for illegal termination of

his services by the management does not call for any interference by this

Court in exercise of its extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under

Article 226 of the Constitution. However, it is clarified that the

compensation of Rs. 60,000/- awarded by the Court below in favour of

workman will be only on account of wrongful termination of his services

and this will not in any manner preclude the petitioner from making claim

for terminal benefits or for compensation under the Workmen

Compensation Act, 1923, if the same is otherwise admissible under the

rules and the law applicable to him.

7. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this petition which

fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.

JULY 20, 2009                                    S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'bsr'