Shri Ramesh Chand Yadav vs Secretary (Labour), Govt. Of Nct ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 1987 Del

*            THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+     Writ Petition (Civil) Nos.19499/2005 & 15116/2006

                                          Date of Decision : 12.05.2009

1)    Writ Petition (Civil) No.19499/2005

Shri Ramesh Chand Yadav                              ......Petitioner
                    Through: Nemo

                                     Versus

Secretary (Labour), Govt. of NCT
of Delhi & Anr.                           ...... Respondents
                      Through: Mr. M.K. Awtaney, 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.

1. The case has been called out twice, the learned counsel for

the petitioner/workman has not appeared.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the

respondent/management in W.P.(C) No. 19499/2005. The

management is the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 15116/2006. I

have also gone through the record.

3. The petitioner/workman in W.P. (C) No. 19499/2005 has

challenged the award dated 3rd September, 2004 passed by

learned Labour Court No.-II in ID No. 176/93 in case titled M/s

Welcome Group Vs. Shri Ramesh Chand Yadav. The learned

Labour Court has held that the petitioner/workman had

completed 240 days of continuous work in a year and established

the relationship of employee and employer between the parties

and that the termination of services of the petitioner/workman

w.e.f. 31st December, 1991 was in contravention of Section 25F of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and therefore, illegal and

unjustified, however, the learned Labour Court instead of

granting the benefit of reinstatement has ordered that the

petitioner shall be paid one time lump sum compensation in lieu

of reinstatement and the payment of back wages. This order was

passed on account of the fact that there has been a gap of 12

years from the date of termination and the payment which was

directed to be made was for a sum of Rs.70,000/- in lieu of

reinstatement, full back wages and other legal benefits.

4. The petitioner felt aggrieved by virtue of the aforesaid

impugned award regarding the payment of compensation and

has assailed the same.

5. A perusal of the grounds of the petition would show that

essentially the petitioner is aggrieved on account of the quantum

of compensation though one of the grounds which has been

taken is that he deserves to be reinstated with full back wags

w.e.f 1st January, 1992.

6. It is settled by Apex Court in catena of authorities that

merely on account of holding of the termination to be illegal and

unjustified does not result in passing of order of reinstatement

ipso facto and payment of full or otherwise back wages. The

learned Labour Court in appropriate cases and in exercise of its

discretion and keeping in view the various factors direct the

payment of one time compensation in lieu of reinstatement and

payment of back wages. Reliance in this regard can be placed

on the following judgments :

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

Mahboob Deepak Vs. Nagar Panchayat Gajraula 2008 (01) 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 (5) SCALE

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

Rolston John Vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court and Ors. AIR 1994 SC 131

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

7. So far as the question of reinstatement and payment of

back wages is concerned, the said benefit has not been given by

the learned Labour Court in exercise of its discretion and there is

no reason or occasion for this writ Court to sit as a court of

appeal and substitute its own view in place of the view of the

learned Labour Court below.

8. As regards the quantum of compensation also it has been

stated in the award that the petitioner/workman was getting

wages of Rs.1450/- per month and the period for which he has

worked with the respondent/workman is w.e.f. 1st November,

1990 to 31st October, 1991 though the petitioner/workman is

claiming to have served the respondent/management for more

than a decade, but there is no finding of fact given by the learned

Labour Court that the petitioner/workman has served the

organization for nearly a decade. Therefore, keeping in view the

fact that the petitioner/workman had worked for 240 days in a

year (from 1st November, 1990 to 31st October, 1991) and his

emoluments were Rs.1450/- per month and the fact that there

was a gap of more than 12 years from the date of alleged

termination to the date of award, the learned Labour Court

granted a sum of Rs.70,000/- as compensation which is just, fair

and reasonable.

9. However, as the aforesaid amount was ordered to be paid

by the learned Labour Court vide award dated 3rd September,

2004 and still remains unpaid nor this amount has been

deposited by the respondent/management either in this Court or

before the learned Labour Court, therefore, this amount has been

utilized by them for their business purpose and/or has remained

in their bank accounts thereby earning them interest on the said

amount.

10. In these circumstances, it will be not only in the interest of

justice but also just and proper that the petitioner ought to give

interest on the aforesaid principal amount of Rs.70,000/- from

the date of the award dated 3rd September, 2004 till the actual

payment is made by the respondent/management to the

petitioner or the same is deposited in this Court.

11. I, accordingly direct the respondent/management to pay

interest @5% per annum on the amount of Rs.70,000/- w.e.f. 3rd

September, 2004 till the date the aforesaid amount is actually

paid to the petitioner/management or it is deposited with the

learned Registrar General of this Court. To that extant the

award dated 3rd September, 2004 stands modified.

12. So far as the W.P. (C) No. 15116/2006 it is not pressed by

the learned counsel on account of the fact that the award in

question has been upheld on the question of quantum of

compensation which has been paid to the workman except that

he has been granted interest, accordingly, the writ bearing no.

15116/2006 is treated to have been dismissed as withdrawn.

The respondent/management is directed to pay directly to the

workman or deposit the aforesaid amount of Rs.70,000/- along

with the interest within a period of four weeks from today failing

of which it shall carry an interest @10%. With these directions,

the impugned award dated 3rd September, 2004 in ID No. 176/93

in both writ petitions stand modified.

V.K. SHALI, J.

May 12, 2009 kp