Suresh Babu vs M/S Indraprastha Gas Limited
2009 Latest Caselaw 1786 Del

*            THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                    Writ Petition (Civil) No.8461/2009

                                     Date of Decision : 01.05.2009

Suresh Babu                                           ......Petitioner
                                     Through : Appearance not
                                               given.

                                 Versus

M/s Indraprastha Gas Limited                    ......        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 ?          YES
3.    Whether the judgment should be reported
      in the Digest ?                                  YES

V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner by virtue of the present writ petition has

challenged the award dated 29th February, 2008 passed by the

learned Labour Court No.XVIII in ID No. 567/06/03 in case titled

Shri Suresh Babu Vs. M/s Indraprasha Gas Limited. By virtue

of the aforesaid award the learned Labour Court has decided the

issue framed by it that the petitioner had not remained

unauthorisedly absent from the service as claimed by the

management. On the contrary he was not permitted to resume

his duties w.e.f. 9th January, 2003, and therefore, it was held

that the termination of his services was in violation of provisions

of 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, instead of

ordering the reinstatement and payment of full back wages, the

learned Labour Court directed the payment of Rs.75,000/-

towards the full and final settlement in lieu of reinstatement and

payment of back wages.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner

claimed himself to be employed by the respondent/management

on 28th June, 2000 as a temporary driver requiring him to drive

vehicle under the City Gas Control Room. It is alleged by him

though he worked till 8th January, 2003, however, the

respondent without any rhyme or reasons did not permit him to

join the duties from 9th January, 2003 and treated him to be

absent.

3. The plea of the respondent that the petitioner had

abandoned his job was not believed and the learned Labour

Court held that though the petitioner was working as a

temporary driver but the law did not make any distinction

between the temporary, contractual or permanent so far as the

dispensing of his services is concerned. Since the provisions of

Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were not

complied with, therefore, his termination was held to be illegal

and unjustified and in violation of 25F of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947.

4. As stated hereinabove instead of payment of full back

wages and reinstatement, the petitioner was given a lump sum

compensation of Rs.75,000/-.

5. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid award and

has challenged the same before this Court by way of present writ.

It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

once the learned Labour Court came to a conclusion that the

termination of the petitioner was illegal and unjustified as a

necessary consequence the learned Labour Court should have

directed reinstatement and payment of full back wages rather

than granting him a compensation of Rs.75,000/-. In support of

his contention the learned counsel has relied upon the judgment

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Vikramaditya

pandey Vs. Industrial Tribunal, Lucknow & Anr. 2001 (I) LLJ

page 701. I have gone through the said authority. I do not agree

with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that

this was a case where on account of holding of the termination of

the petitioner as illegal and unjustified the learned Labour Court

ought to have granted the benefit of reinstatement and payment

of full back wages ipso facto. In the judgment which has been

relied upon by the petitioner, the learned Labour Court has been

observed that it is difficult to order reinstatement as the

employee in the said case was not a regular employee and he was

granted back wages only to the extent of 50% apart from

reinstatement.

6. From 2001 there have been catena of authorities when the

Apex Court has not only held that a temporary employee who is

not recruited according to the normal selection procedure has no

right of regularization but also the fact that merely on account of

the fact that the termination is held to be illegal and unjustified

does not ipso facto result in grant of benefit of reinstatement.

Notable among these authorities are of State of Karnataka Vs.

Uma Devi 2006 (4) SCC 7 which has been quoted copiously by

the learned Labour Court in observing since the petitioner was a

temporary employee, therefore, in view of Uma Devi judgment

(Supra) he was not entitled to claim of regularization. With

regard to the power of the learned Labour Court under Section

11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 reliance can be placed

on the following authorties wherein the Court has been given

ample discretion to grant one time lump sum compensation in

lieu of reinstatement as the Apex Court has observed that merely

on account of holding that the termination to be illegal does not

result in grant of benefit of reinstatement and the payment of full

back wages.

Employers, Management of Central P &D Inst. Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2005 (9) SCC 171

Mahboob Deepak Vs. Nagar Panchayat Gajraula 2008 (11) SCC

Branch Manager, M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corpn. Ltd & Anr. Vs. Shri S. C. Pandey 2006 (2) SCALE 619

Rajasthan Lalit Kala Academy Vs. Radhey Shyam JT 2008 (8) SC

Madhya Pradesh Administration Vs. Tribhuban 2007 (9) SCR

Haryana Trourism Corporation Ltd. Vs. Fakir Chand etc. 2003 (8) SCC 248

Rolston John Vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court and Ors. 2007 (9) SCC 39

State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Des Bandhu 2007 (9) SCC 39

7. Coming back to the facts of the present case since in the

instant case the discretion has already been exercised by the

learned Labour Court in not granting the benefit of reinstatement

of payment of full back wages on account of the fact that the

petitioner was working as a temporary driver therefore, these

vital facts cannot be ignored and merely because the writ Court

is a superior Court it cannot sit as a court of appeal and set

aside the discretion which is primarily to be exercised by the

learned Labour Court and substitute its own views in place of the

views of the learned Labour Court. I do not find that there is any

infirmity or perversity or violation of any rule or regulation in not

granting the benefit of reinstatement and payment of full back

wages or otherwise to the petitioner.

8. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the

petitioner has been awarded the compensation of Rs.75,000/-

though no submission has been made with regard to the

quantum of compensation by the petitioner, however, if we see

the quantum of compensation in the light of the fact that the

total number of years of service which has been rendered by the

petitioner with the respondent/management is only just little

above three years. It has also come on record that he was

drawing a salary of approximately Rs.3980/- per month. If the

services of the petitioner would have been terminated in

compliance of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,

the respondents would have paid much lesser compensation as

retrenchment compensation to the petitioner. The quantum of

money which has been granted to the petitioner as compensation

tantamount to wages for a period of one year and seven months

which is almost one of the total length of service rendered by the

petitioner with the respondent/management. Further the

petitioner was working as a driver and a person with the skill of

driving can hardly remain idle in a city like Delhi. These facts

also in my view persuades this Court holding that the quantum

of compensation fixed by the learned Labour Court in the instant

case was just, fair and reasonable, and accordingly, that also

does not warrant any interference.

9. For the foregoing reasons mentioned above, this Court does

not find any infirmity in the award dated 29th February, 2008 in

ID No. 567/06/03, and accordingly, the writ petition is

dismissed.

V.K. SHALI, J.

May 1st, 2009 KP