M/S M. K. Plastic vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 1853 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                        W.P.(C) NO. 23748/2005
                      Date of Decision: 4th May, 2009
%
M/s M. K. Plastic                                       .... Petitioner

                      Through Mr. K.K. Chabbra, Advocate

                                 Versus

Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.                            .... Respondents

                      Through Mr. Sanjay Visen and Mr. R. Pandey,
                              Advocate

CORAM:
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 in the instant case has challenged the award in ID

No.46/86 in case titled M/s M.K. Plastic Vs. S/Sh. Inderdev Singh,

Shobh Nath Singh, Swami Nath Singh and Lal Bahadur, C/o

Rajdhani General Mazdoor Ekta Union passed by learned Labour

Court No.II on 9th July, 2004 wherein the learned Labour Court has

held that the services of the respondents/workmen were terminated

illegally and unjustifiably, however, keeping in view the facts of the case

the learned Labour Court instead of granting the reinstatement and

payment of full back wages, awarded compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- to

each workman in lieu of reinstatement and payment of full back wages.

The petitioner has challenged the said finding on merits as well as on

the quantum of compensation.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record. Most of the grounds which has been raised by the learned

counsel for the petitioner are pertaining to the question of appreciation

of evidence. It is settled legal position that the scope of judicial review

of the award passed by the learned Labour Court is very limited. The

High Court in exercise of said power of judicial review can set aside the

award only if there is violation of principles of natural justice or it is

based on no evidence that is say that it is perverse or it violates any

rule or regulation.

3. Coming back to the facts of the present case, the learned counsel

for the petitioner has not been able to show in any manner as to how

the award is liable to be interfered both on the question of violation of

principle of natural justice or perversity or what rule or regulation has

been violated.

4. The learned Labour Court after analysis of the evidence has held

there is a relationship of employee and employer between the parties

and the fact that their services have been terminated illegally and

unjustifiably by the petitioner/management without compliance of the

provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On the

question of relief which is to be given to the respondents/workmen, the

learned Labour Court has arrived at a finding of a fact that this is not a

fit case where a direction should be given for reinstatement and

payment of full back wages. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner

have rendered a long length of service with the petitioner, therefore, an

amount of Rs.2,50,000/- be paid to each of the workman as a onetime

compensation in lieu of reinstatement or the payment of full back

wages.

5. The law regarding grant of relief on account of holding the

termination as illegal and unjustifiable is very well settled. The

Supreme Court in catena of cases has laid down that once the

termination is held to be illegal and unjustifiable it does not ipso facto

result in passing an order of reinstatement. The learned Labour Court

has still the discretion to direct the payment of compensation in lieu

thereof. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the following

authorities:

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

SC 311.

6. While calculating the compensation to be paid in lieu of

reinstatement by the workman various factors which are not

enumerated, have been taken on account. These factors are the

number of years of service put in by the employee, the amount of wages

drawn by him, the kind of work which he has done and the possibility

of getting alternative employment. Once these factors are taken into

account, the learned Labour Court can also fix the compensation which

has been done in the instant case by fixing a uniform compensation of

Rs.2,50,000/-. There is absolutely no justification of tempering with

the said quantum of compensation because this Court sits as a superior

Court. The respondents/workmen have rendered fairly a long length of

service and has still long way to go which has been cut short by the

illegal termination, therefore, even the quantum of compensation in my

view does not warrant any interference. In Apparel Export Promotion

Council Vs. A.K. Chopra (1999) 1 SCC 759 the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has laid down the scope of judicial review in following words:

"Judicial review, not being an appeal from a decision, but a review of the manner in which the decision was arrived at, the court, while exercising the power of judicial review, must remain conscious of the fact that if the decision has been arrived at by the administrative authority after following the principles established by law and the rules of natural justice and the individual has received a fair treatment to meet the case against him, the court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the administrative authority on a matter which fell squarely within the sphere of jurisdiction of that authority."

7. For the forgoing reasons, the writ petition is without any merit

and the same is dismissed.

May 04, 2009                                          V.K. SHALI, J.
KP