Delhi High Court
Shri Raj Pal Singh vs Horticulture Forest Department ... on 28 July, 2009
Author: S.N. Aggarwal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C.) No. 8258/2003
% Date of Decision: 28th July, 2009
# SHRI RAJ PAL SINGH ..... PETITIONER
! Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate.
VERSUS
$ HORTICULTURE/FOREST DEPARTMENT OF DELHI ADMINISTRATION
.....RESPONDENT
^ Through: Mr. V.K. Tandon, 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)
The petitioner Shri Raj Pal Singh, in this writ petition, is aggrieved
by award of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to him by the Industrial
Adjudicator vide award dated 26.04.2003 in ID No. 184/95 (Old ID No.
441/94) in lieu of his claim for reinstatement and back wages.
2. Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner, has argued that the compensation of Rs. 50,000/- awarded by
the Industrial Adjudicator is inadequate and on very low side and in
support of his said contention, he has relied upon a judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Telecom District Manager & Others Vs.
Keshab Deb (2008) 8 SCC 402 and relying on the said judgment, he
has argued that since the Supreme Court has awarded compensation of
Rs. 1,50,000/- to a daily wager who had worked only for 5 years the
compensation to the petitioner should also be suitably enhanced in view
of the fact that he had served for 7 years as daily wager prior to his
termination.
3. Mr. V.K. Tandon, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent, has opposed this writ petition on the ground that this writ
petition against the impugned award is not maintainable because
according to him, the petitioner had received the awarded amount in
terms of the impugned award prior to filing of the present petition. This
objection to the maintainability of the writ petition taken by the
respondent, in my view, is not tenable because the petitioner cannot be
expected to wait for enhancement of the award amount before receiving
the undisputed amount awarded to him by the Industrial Adjudicator. I,
therefore, hold that the writ petition seeking enhancement of
compensation is maintainable and has to be considered on merits of the
case.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties on the
question of quantum of compensation awarded by the Industrial
Adjudicator to the petitioner in lieu of his claim for reinstatement and
back wages.
5. The petitioner was appointed as a Beldar/Mali with the respondent
on daily wages w.e.f. 09.10.1984. His services were terminated on
18.07.1991. He has worked for about 7 years with the respondent before
his termination. His last drawn wages were Rs. 1,313/- per month. The
Industrial Adjudicator taking all these facts into account, has awarded Rs.
50,000/- to the petitioner in lieu of his claim for reinstatement and back
wages. The judgment in Telecom District Manager & Others Vs.
Keshab Deb (supra) referred and relied upon by the petitioner's counsel
is of no help to the petitioner because this judgment does not lay down
thumb rule for payment of compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- to any daily
wager who has worked for 5 years or more. Each case has to be decided
on its own merits. On being asked, the counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner was not able to tell as to what were the wages of the daily
wager in the case decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred-above.
There is no straight jacket formula to arrive at a reasonable figure of
compensation to which a workman is entitled in lieu of his claim for
reinstatement.
6. In the opinion of this Court, the compensation of Rs. 50,000/-
awarded by the Industrial Adjudicator to the petitioner appears to be
reasonable taking into account his last drawn wages of Rs. 1,313/- per
month and the period of service rendered by him with the respondent
prior to his termination. Even if this Court in its perception feel that
compensation awarded by the Industrial Adjudicator has to be marginally
increased still it would not be appropriate to substitute the opinion of this
Court on the quantum of compensation in place of the quantification
done by the Industrial Adjudicator.
7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and for the foregoing
reasons, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned award
that may call for an interference by this Court in exercise of its
extraordinary discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
8. This writ petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed.
JULY 28, 2009 S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'bsr'
