Laxmi Kant Jha vs Post And Telegraphs Department
2009 Latest Caselaw 2721 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                 W.P.(C) No. 10192/2009

%                 Date of Decision: 20 July, 2009


# Laxmi Kant Jha
                                                   ..... PETITIONER
!                 Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate.

                                 VERSUS

$ Post & Telegraphs Department
                                                .....RESPONDENT

^                 Through: Mohd. Mannan, Advocate.

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

1. Whether reporters of Local paper 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

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

directed against an award dated 23.05.2008 passed by the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court awarding an amount of

Rs.50,000/- as compensation to him in lieu of his claim for reinstatement

and back wages.

2     Heard.

3     Mr. Anuj Aggarwal learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner relying upon four judgments of the Supreme Court              in (i)

Management of Agro Food Private Limited Vs. S. Rajulu (decided on

03.04.2008; SLP (Civil) No. 4735/2006); (ii) UP State Electricity Board Vs.

Laxmi Kant Gupta (decided on 26.09.2008; SLP (Civil) No. 10437/2006);

(iii) Rajasthan Lalit Kala Academy Vs. Radhey Shyam; JT 2008 (9) SC 311

and (v)Talwara Corporation Credit and Service Society Limited Vs. Sushil

Kumar (decided on 01.10.2008; SLP (Civil) No.336/2005) contends that

the compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal below

is quite inadequate and for that reason, according to him, the impugned

award suffers from perversity.

4 I have considered the judgments referred and relied upon by the

petitioner's counsel but in my opinion, those judgments are not

applicable to the facts of this case. In none of these cases, the workman

was appointed as a daily rated workman by way of back door entry. I am

of the view that each case has to be decided on its own merits. In the

present case, the petitioner was appointed by the respondent as car

driver w.e.f. 17.02.1986 as a daily rated workman at a fixed salary of

Rs.562/- per month. Admittedly no advertisement was issued for filling up

the post of car driver to which the petitioner was appointed. The

petitioner admittedly did not make any application for his appointment.

His appointment with the respondent was a back door entry. He had

hardly worked for about one year four months as a daily rated workman

at a fixed salary of Rs.562/- when his services were dispensed with by the

respondent w.e.f. 17.06.1987. During the period of one year four months

the petitioner worked with the respondent, he hardly got less than

Rs.8,000/- in the entire period from the respondent management towards

his wages. Now he has been awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- by the

tribunal below which in my view by no means can be said to be

inadequate. While determining the quantum of compensation, the Court

has to take into account the nature of appointment, period for which the

workman has worked and also all other related factors. In this case I do

not find any perversity in the impugned award of the court below.

5 For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ

petition which fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.

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