Delhi High Court
Soni Engineering Works vs Workman, Harpal Singh on 23 March, 2009
Author: V.K.Shali
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) NO. 18142/2005
% Date of Decision : 23.3.2009
SONI ENGINEERING WORKS .... Petitioner
Through Mr. Manish Kapur, Advocate
Versus
WORKMAN, HARPAL SINGH .... Respondent
Through None
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? YES
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in
the Digest? YES
V. K. SHALI, J. (Oral)
*
1. The petitioner has challenged the award dated 7th April, 1997
passed by the learned Labour Court -VII in ID no.433/1988 titled as
The Workman Sh.Harpal Singh Vs. The Management of M/s Soni
Engineering Works.
2. By virtue of the aforesaid award, the learned Labour Court has
come to a finding that the services of the respondent/workman was
illegally and unjustifiably terminated w.e.f 25th November, 1987 and
accordingly, the Labour Court was pleased to direct the reinstatement
of the respondent /workman with payment of back wages @ Rs.600/-
per month.
3. The petitioner has challenged the award on the ground that the
petitioner was a partner of M/s Soni Engineering Works and on account
of the dispute between the partners, the matter could not be followed
up because of which the aforesaid ex parte award was passed. It was
urged by the learned counsel that the petitioner was not given an
opportunity to adduce evidence and therefore, there was a violation of
principles of natural justice.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone
through the award. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is
that there was violation of principles of natural justice on account of not
having been given an opportunity to cross examine the respondent
/workman or an opportunity to adduce the evidence is not correct on
account of the fact that the petitioner was served and had put in
appearance. It had even thereafter chosen to file its written statement.
This is indicative of the fact that the petitioner /Management was
served. The petitioner /Management could pray for setting aside the ex
parte award only if they were able to show that they were prevented by
'sufficient cause' to appear in the matter and adduce the evidence in the
matter. The ground which has been given in the writ petition for setting
aside the ex parte award is that there was a dispute between the
partners. This is in my view does not constitute a 'sufficient cause'.
The petitioner /Management if it has chosen to abstain from
appearance before the learned Labour Court then it has done so at its
own peril and it is not open to the petitioner /Management to content
that on account of its abstinence, there was violation of principles of
natural justice which would warrant the setting aside of the ex parte
award. Accordingly, this contention of the counsel is without any
merit.
5. A perusal of the award shows that it is a reasoned award and the
counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any perversity in
the award or violation of any rule and regulation which would have
warrant interference with the same. Therefore, the writ petition of the
petitioner so far as the challenge to the award dated 7th April, 1997 is
concerned, is without any merit.
6. However, with regard to the question of reinstatement and
payment of back wages, it has been laid down by the Supreme Court in
catena of cases that merely on account of the Labour Court holding that
the termination of the workman is illegal and unjustified would not
necessarily mean automatic reinstatement and payment of back wages.
There are various other factors to be borne in mind while passing such
an order in the instant case. Reliance in this regard is placed on
Talwara Co-operative Credit Service Society Ltd. Vs. Sushil Kumar
2008 (9) SCC 486.
7. The petitioner has made a definite averment in the petition that
the business of the petitioner is closed. The respondent /workman has
also not been appearing for the past nearly a year. This clearly shows
that even if the order of reinstatement is sustained, the respondent/
workman is not interested in reinstatement.
8. Keeping in view of the fact that the petitioner's business is closed
and the fact that the respondent/workman is not appearing, I feel that
the order of reinstatement and payment of back wages needs to be
modified by an order directing payment of one lump sum compensation
to the respondent /workman.
9. While calculating the payment of compensation, I have taken into
consideration the factum that the salary of the petitioner was Rs.600/-
per month and specifically the aforesaid amount if calculated for a
period of almost 20 years would be roughly Rs.1,50,000/- or so.
10. I, therefore, quantified the compensation to be paid to the
respondent /workman to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- instead of directing
the reinstatement and payment of back wages from the date of alleged
illegal termination dated 25th November, 1987. To that extent, the
impugned award of the Labour Court stands modified.
11. So far as the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is concerned, out of the
said amount of Rs.34,730/- is already deposited by the petitioner in
compliance to the order dated 27th September, 2005 passed by the High
Court. Accordingly, the petitioner /Management is directed to pay or
deposit the balance amount of Rs.65,270/- (Rs.1,00,000 - Rs.34,730 =
Rs.65,270/-) with the learned Registrar General of this Court within
four weeks. On deposit of the aforesaid amount along with the interest
of proof of subsequent amount, if deposited, shall be released to the
respondent/workman as and when he makes an application in this
regard.
12. With these observations, the award dated 7th April, 1997 stands
modified. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
MARCH 23, 2009 V.K. SHALI, J.
RN
