Sahan Institute, Federation For ... vs Ranjit Singh
2009 Latest Caselaw 2877 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

      +      W.P.(C.) No. 10456/2009 & CM No. 9174/2009

%                  Date of Decision: 28th July, 2009


# Sahan Institute, Federation for Mentally Retarded (India)
                                                       ..... Petitioner
!               Through: Mr. P. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate.

                                VERSUS

$ Ranjit Singh
                                                       .....Respondent

^                  Through: Nemo.

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 petitioner management is directed

against an industrial award dated 04.04.2009 passed by Shri Sanjay

Garg, Presiding Officer, Labour Court-V, Delhi by which the respondent

has been awarded compensation of Rs. 70,000/- in lieu of his claim for

reinstatement and back wages.

2. Heard.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent who

was appointed as a Peon with the petitioner management w.e.f.

22.05.1995. His last drawn wages were Rs. 2800/- per month. He along

with his colleague Chhabi Lal misbehaved with a lady teacher on

16.09.2005 and it is alleged that for that reason, the respondent's

colleague, Mr. Chhabi Lal resigned on his own whereas the respondent

stopped coming to the petitioner school after 30.09.2005.

4. The respondent being the workman alleges his termination from

the service of the petitioner management w.e.f. 01.10.2005 and

aggrieved by his impugned termination, he raised an industrial dispute

which was referred by the appropriate Government for adjudication to

the Labour Court. The Labour Court on the basis of evidence adduced by

the parties before it arrived at a conclusion that the termination of the

respondent from the service of the petitioner was unjustified and illegal

and was violative of principles of natural justice.

5. The petitioner management is aggrieved by the impugned award of

the Industrial Adjudicator. Mr. P.Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has argued that the impugned

award is liable to be struck down because the petitioner is neither an

industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 nor it had terminated the services of the respondent as alleged by

him.

6. According to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner, the respondent had stopped reporting for duty w.e.f.

01.10.2005 and it was, therefore, a case of abandonment of service by

the workman and not of termination.

7. I have carefully gone through the impugned award and find that

both the above points urged by counsel for the petitioner have been

dealt with in the said award. Cogent reasons have been given in the

impugned award for holding the petitioner an industry within the

meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and for that

reliance has also been placed upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Versus A.

Rajappa and Others reported in AIR 1978 SC 548 wherein a triple

test is laid down to ascertain whether an establishment is an industry or

not. (i) systematic activity; (ii) co-operation between employer and

employee; and (iii) the production and/or distribution of goods and

services calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes.

8. I am in agreement with the reasoning given in the impugned award

to hold that the petitioner is an industry within the meaning of Section

2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

9. The contention of the petitioner that the respondent himself had

abandoned the services of the petitioner was not believed by the Court

below for cogent reasons. This Court is not sitting in appeal over the

award given by the Industrial Adjudicator. This Court can interfere in the

impugned award only in case it is found that the award suffers from

perversity. The test to determine whether an award suffers from

perversity or not is the test of a prudent and a reasonable man as to

whether any reasonable man would not arrive at the same conclusion as

arrived by the Industrial Adjudicator on the evidence that was produced

by the parties before it. In the present case, the Industrial Adjudicaor has

rightly held the termination of the respondent to be illegal and

unjustified.

10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has lastly

argued that the compensation of Rs. 70,000/- awarded by the Industrial

Adjudicator is on a higher side and may be reduced by this Court keeping

in view that the petitioner is no longer receiving any grant from the

Government for its institute and that the institute is being run on

individual donations. This argument has also not impressed me. The

respondent before his impugned termination had worked with the

petitioner for more than 10 years. It was found that his services were

wrongly terminated by the petitioner management. His last drawn wages

were Rs. 2800/- per month. These facts have not been disputed by the

management. Under these circumstances, the compensation of Rs.

70,000/- awarded by the Industrial Adjudicator to the workman in relation

to his claim for reinstatement and back wages, by no means, can be said

to be excessive or unreasonable.

11. In view of the above and having regard to the facts of the case, I do

not find any merit in this case which fails and is hereby dismissed in

limine.

JULY 28, 2009                                  S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'ma'