Shri Mohd. Shakir vs M/S Sunder Lal Jain Hospital
2009 Latest Caselaw 1051 Del

*            THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                    Writ Petition (Civil) No.7864/2009

                                     Date of Decision : 30.03.2009

Shri Mohd. Shakir                                 ......Petitioner
                                Through:    Mr.   Brijesh  Kumar,
                                            Advocate

                                 Versus

M/s Sunder Lal Jain Hospital                       .......Respondent
                         Through:           Nemo

CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

1.    Whether Reporters of local papers 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

V.K. SHALI, J.

1. The petitioner has challenged the award dated 23.9.2008 passed

by the learned Labour Court-XII in ID no.411/2004 titled Sh. Mohd.

Shakir Vs. M/s Sunder Lal Jain Hospital, by virtue of which the

learned Labour Court although upheld that the termination order

dated 16.4.1999 is illegal and unjustified but instead of granting the

reinstatement to the petitioner, it has granted the petitioner one time

compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.

2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned award on this

limited question of grant of one time compensation in lieu of

reinstatement by contenting that the learned Labour Court in its order

has relied upon conjectures and surmises to say that parties have

spread 'venomous fangs' and this has 'bred a mutual distrust' and

therefore, would not justify the grant of reinstatement.

3. This reasoning has been assailed on the ground that the learned

Labour Court did not have any material before it not only pass such

observation but also to deny the benefit of reinstatement.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused

the record. It is now settled by the Apex Court in a number of

judgments that once the termination /dismissal of a workman is held

to be illegal and unjustified that in itself ipso facto does not result in

reinstatement of the workman. The Labour Court in exercise of its

powers under Section 11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

instead of granting the benefit of reinstatement can grant one time

compensation in lieu thereof. Reliance can be placed on Talwara

Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. Vs. Sushil Kumar 2008 (9) SCC

486. The Supreme Court has more recently held that relief of

reinstatement is a trite and is not automatic nor is the grant of back

wages is automatic. The Courts while exercising their power under

Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act are required to strike a

balance in a situation of this nature.

5. Coming back to the facts of the present case, paragraph 16 of

the impugned judgment clearly shows that the learned Labour Court

after holding the termination of the petitioner to be illegal was

cognizant of the fact that on account of the hot contest of the matter

before the Labour Court, parties are bound to have trust deficit

because of which the Court did not order reinstatement. It may

destroy the atmosphere in the hospital.

6. These observations which have been passed by the learned

Labour Court cannot be said to be without any basis or arbitrary on

account of the fact that being the Trial Court, it has recorded the

evidence, seen the conduct of the parties, witnesses and the

authorized representatives and therefore, it was well within its rights

to assess that in the event a direction for reinstatement is passed, it

may hamper the overall peaceful atmosphere of an Organization.

7. Another factor which seems to have weighed with the learned

Labour Court is to the effect that the respondent is a Hospital and that

too charitable. In such an Organization where the patients have to be

treated, there has to be a complete peace and tranquility and

undiluted attention to the welfare of the indoor as well as outdoor

patients rather than the Management getting embroiled in litigation

with its workman.

8. The quantum of compensation which has been fixed in favour of

the petitioner, keeping in view all these facts also seems to be just, fair

and reasonable. Therefore, I find no infirmity in the exercise of the

discretion by the Labour Court which would warrant any interference

in the writ jurisdiction merely because the Writ Court being a superior

Court holds a different opinion, it cannot and ought not substitute its

discretion which may be contrary to the discretion which has been

exercised by the learned Labour Court below.

9. With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed as being

without any merit.

No order as to costs.

V.K. SHALI, J.

March 30, 2009 RN