Delhi High Court
Shri Satyapal Singh vs The Management Of M/S Rathi ... on 17 March, 2009
Author: V.K.Shali
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) NO. 17795/2006
% Dated : 17.03.2009
SHRI SATYAPAL SINGH .... Petitioner
Through Mr. Sanjay Gosh, Advocate
Versus
THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S RATHI INDUSTRIES .... Respondent
LTD.
Through Mr. S.C. Joshi, Advocate
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment? YES
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. (Oral)
*
1. The petitioner has challenged the award dated 29th July,
2006 passed by Mr. Sudesh Kumar, Presiding Officer, Labour
Court No.XX, Karkardooma, Delhi in new ID No. 058/2006 and
old ID No. 255/1995 in the case titled GD Rathi Steels Ltd. Vs.
Satyapal Singh. By virtue of the aforesaid award the learned
Labour Court has directed the respondent/management to pay a
sum of Rs.10,000/- only to the petitioner. The reason for
granting such a low amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation in
lieu of reinstatement and payment of back wages is on account of
the fact that the workman himself had admitted that during the
course of the recording of evidence he was unemployed only for a
period of two years.
2. The petitioner by virtue of the present writ petition is
contending that once there is a finding on the question of the fact
that the termination of the services of the petitioner/workman was
illegal and unjustified he ought to have been granted back wages
or reinstatement and instead of that only a sum of Rs. 10,000/-
has been granted. The learned counsel also contended that the
petitioner/workman has very fairly admitted that after the
termination of his services on 21st September, 1995 he had
obtained employment with M/s G.D. Industries after remaining
unemployed for two years. It was contended by the learned
counsel for the petitioner normally the workman denies having
worked in an alternative establishment in a case of this nature.
The petitioner in a very forthright, candid and true manner has
stated that he was unemployed only for the two years between the
period from 20th July, 1994 to 20th July, 1996, and therefore, at
least for this period the petitioner ought to have been granted the
compensation which could have been calculated at the minimum
wage which was payable for the said period or alternatively on the
basis of Rs. 1526/- which was the last drawn wage of the
petitioner/workman. It was also contended by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that his last drawn wages was 1,526/- a
total amount payable to the petitioner/workman would be a sum
of Rs. approximately 36,000/- or so. While as if the said amount
is calculated on the minimum wages applicable to the
petitioner/workman then the petitioner is entitled to payment of
approximately Rs.43,400/- or so. In this background of this, it
was contended that the order of compensation should be suitably
modified so as to grant a reasonable compensation in lieu of
reinstatement to the petitioner/workman.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the respondent also.
The learned counsel for the respondent has raised essentially
question of appreciation of evidence which are not relevant so far
as the disposal of the present writ petition is concerned.
4. I have thoughtfully considered the submissions made before
me. So far as the grant of compensation which has been granted
to the petitioner/workman by the learned Labour Court No.XX in
the shape of Rs. 10,000/- is concerned, prima facie, in my view is
grossly inadequate. This becomes all the more so on account of
the fact that the petitioner is being punished for being very candid
and forthright that he was employed in another establishment in
or around Delhi after remaining unemployed for a period of two
years. Therefore, I am of the considered view the compensation
ought to have been calculated at least at the rate of last drawn
wages or the minimum wages for these two years i.e. for the period
20th July, 1994 to 20th July, 1996 which ought to have been
granted to him by way of compensation. To that extent that the
learned Labour Court has fallen into a grave error in granting only
a sum of Rs. 10,000/- which by no stretch of imagination can be
said to be just, fair and reasonable compensation after holding the
termination of service to be illegal and unjustified.
5. I, accordingly, modify the award passed by the learned
Labour Court dated 29th July, 2006 by enhancing the
compensation from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.44,000/- which is
calculated at the rate of Rs. 1806 per month being a minimum
wages for a period when he remained unemployed. To that extent
the award of the learned Labour Court dated 29 th July, 2006 in
new ID No. 058/2006 stands modified. The petitioner is further
directed to pay a cost of Rs. 6000/-. With these directions the
writ petition is disposed of.
MARCH 17, 2009 V.K. SHALI, J.
KP
