Delhi High Court
Shri Rakesh Suri vs Engineering Project (India) ... on 11 November, 2009
Author: S.N. Aggarwal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C.) No. 5663/2000
% Date of Decision: 11th NOVEMBER, 2009
# SHRI RAKESH SURI
.....PETITIONER
! Through: Mr. Daljinder Singh , Advocate.
VERSUS
$ ENGINEERING PROJECT (INDIA) LTD. & ANR.
.....RESPONDENTS
^ Through: Ms. C.M. Chopra, Sr. Advocate with
CORAM:
Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL
1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the
judgment? NO
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NO
S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)
The petitioner was employed by the management of respondent
No. 1 as Laboratory Assistant for its project at Kuwait vide appointment
letter dated 25.09.1978 (Annexure 'A' at page 18 of the paper book). His
appointment was valid till the completion of the project. Respondent No.
1 instead of posting the petitioner at Kuwait, vide letter dated 04.01.1979
(Annexure 'C' at page 22 of the paper book), posted him on its project in
Iraq. There was no protest by the petitioner to his said posting in Iraq. His
services were terminated by respondent No. 1 w.e.f. 18.12.1982. The
petitioner was aggrieved by his termination and he had raised an
industrial dispute which was referred by the appropriate Government in
the Government of NCT of Delhi to the Labour Court for adjudication. The
Labour Court has found the termination of the petitioner to be illegal and
has awarded him a compensation of Rs.2.5 lacs against the management
for illegal termination of his services.
2 The petitioner, in this writ petition, is aggrieved by the amount of
compensation awarded to him by the Labour Court. The learned counsel
appearing on his behalf contends that the compensation of Rs.2.5 lacs
awarded to the petitioner by the court below should be adequately
enhanced by this Court.
3 Mr. Daljinder Singh learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner has argued that the compensation to be awarded to the
petitioner should be worked out on the basis of last drawn wages from
the date of termination till the date of completion of project (s) on which
he was employed in Iraq. Mr. Singh appearing on behalf of the petitioner
has submitted that there were three projects of respondent No. 1 working
in Iraq which according to him were not complete on the date respondent
No. 1 terminated the services of the petitioner i.e. 18.12.1982. In view of
this submission made by the counsel for the petitioner, the crucial
question that arises for consideration is the date when the projects of
respondent No. 1 in Iraq were completed. The onus of proof to prove the
date of completion of projects in Iraq was upon the petitioner. It was for
him to have pleaded and proved that the project (s) of respondent No. 1
in Iraq were not completed on the date of termination of his services i.e.
on 18.12.1982 for supporting his claim for compensation on the basis of
last drawn wages from the date of termination till the date of completion
of projects. On being repeatedly asked, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner could not show the pleading in the statement of
claim regarding date, month or year of closure of the project (s) of
respondent No. 1 in Iraq. In para 17 of the affidavit filed by the petitioner
in his evidence before the Labour Court (relevant portion is at page 67 of
the paper book) has stated that he was required at site in Iraq by
respondent No. 1 for at least one year more from the date of termination
of his services. If that was so, the petitioner could have claimed wages at
the rate of last drawn wages for about one year more from the date of his
termination. His counsel Mr Daljinder Singh has said that the last drawn
wages of the petitioner at the time of termination of his services were
Rs.5,000/- per month. Though Ms. Chander Mani Chopra learned senior
counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 says that the last drawn
wages of the petitioner were only Rs.3,500/- per month but even if this
Court take the last drawn wages of the petitioner to be Rs.5,000/- per
month as stated by his counsel, still the petitioner would have got only
about Rs.60,000/- as wages for one year more beyond the date of his
termination as he himself states in para 17 of the affidavit that he was
required at site for about one year more after the date of termination.
The petitioner has also stated in para 17 of the affidavit at page 67 of the
paper book that he was also working at two other project (s) sites i.e.
Talafar and Shirkat and according to him, these two projects were
expected to be completed in another 2-3 years. Even if at best we take
that the petitioner was entitled to continue in the service of respondent
No. 1 for maximum of another three years as stated by him in para 17 of
his evidence affidavit, he would have got wages of Rs.1,80,000/- in these
three years calculated at the rate of his last drawn wages of Rs.5,000/-
per month. As against this, maximum amount of Rs.1,80,000/- to which
the petitioner might have been entitled on account of wages in three
years beyond the date of his termination, had his services not been
terminated illegally, the court below has awarded him compensation of
Rs.2.5 lacs which by no means can be said to be inadequate, calling for
an enhancement by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution. In the considered opinion of this Court, the
compensation of Rs.2.5 lacs awarded by the court below in favour of the
petitioner is very reasonable.
4 In view of what has been stated above, I do not find any merit in
this writ petition which fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to
costs.
NOVEMBER 11, 2009 S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'a'
