Pramod Kumar And Others vs M/S Continental Telepower ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 3493 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                       W.P.(C.) No. 11312/2009

%                 Date of Decision: 01st September, 2009


# PRAMOD KUMAR AND OTHERS
                                                        ..... PETITIONERS

!                 Through: Ms. K.B. Hina, Advocate.

                                 VERSUS

$ M/S CONTINENTAL TELEPOWER INDUSTRIES LTD.
                                                        .....RESPONDENT

^                 Through:    NEMO.

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) C.M. No. 10874/2009 in W.P.(C.) No. 11312/2009

Exemption as prayed for is granted subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C.) No. 11312/2009

The workmen, who are four in number, have filed this writ petition

seeking to challenge an industrial award dated 21.08.2008 passed by the

Industrial Adjudicator awarding them compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-,

Rs. 80,000/-, Rs. 60,000/- and Rs. 60,000/- respectively to each one of

them in lieu of their claim for reinstatement and back wages for alleged

termination of their services by the management of the respondent w.e.f.

26. 12.2005.

2. Heard.

3. The petitioners were appointed by the management of the

respondent to the post of Insulation Operator on different dates between

1989 to 2001. They alleged termination of their services by the

management of the respondent w.e.f. 26.12.2005 and had raised an

industrial dispute with regard to their termination before the Labour

Court. The petitioners in their statement of claim filed before the Labour

Court had claimed their reinstatement with back wages.

4. The respondent had contested the claim of the petitioners before

the Labour Court on two grounds, namely, (i) that the petitioners had

abandoned the services of the respondent w.e.f. 16.12.2005, and (ii) that

the establishment of the respondent was closed down w.e.f. 31.03.2006.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, the Labour Court had framed

following issues on 10.07.2006:

(i) Whether the workmen had abandoned the job themselves w.e.f.

16.12.2005 and did not report for duty as claimed in preliminary

Objection No. 1 of the written statement?

(ii) Whether the management has been closed w.e.f. 31.03.2006, if so,

its effect?

(iii)Whether the services of the workmen have been terminated

illegally and unjustifiably?

6. The Labour Court, on the basis of evidence produced before it, did

not accept the plea of the management that the petitioners had

abandoned its service w.e.f. 16.12.2005 as alleged by it and have

returned finding on Issue No. (i) in this regard against the management.

However, the Labour Court accepted the plea of the management that it

had closed its establishment w.e.f. 31.03.2006 and accordingly returned

findings on this point in favour of the management while deciding the

Issue No. (ii). As the Labour Court found that termination of the

petitioners from the service of the respondent was contrary to the

provisions of Section 25(F) of the the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the

Court below awarded different amounts of compensation in favour of

each of the petitioners depending upon the length of their service before

their termination and the last drawn wages which they were getting prior

to their termination. The petitioner No. 1 was awarded compensation of

Rs. 1,00,000/-, the petitioner No. 2 was awarded compensation of

Rs. 80,000/- and the petitioners No. 3 and 4 were awarded compensation

of Rs. 60,000/- each.

7. The petitioners being the workmen have not challenged the

findings of the Labour Court on Issue No. (ii) regarding closure of the

establishment of the respondent w.e.f. 31.03.2006. Ms. K.B. Hina,

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, on being asked,

could not point out anything on record to show that the establishment of

the respondent was not closed w.e.f. 31.03.2006 as decided by the

Labour Court in favour of the management.

8. In U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd. and Another Vs. Udai

Narain Pandey AIR 2006 SC 586, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court that in a case where the establishment was closed by the

management, the workman on being found to be illegally terminated, is

entitled only for wages for the period between the date of his termination

and the date of the closure of the establishment.

9. In the present case, the petitioners were terminated on 26.12.2005

and the establishment of the respondent was closed down shortly

thereafter w.e.f. 31.03.2006. The petitioners in that situation would have

been entitled only for wages of around three months besides Notice Pay

of one month in terms of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947.

10. In Telecom District Manager and Others Vs. Keshab Deb,

reported as 2008 8 SCC 402, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

as under:

"Even in a case where an order of termination is illegal, an automatic direction for reinstatement with full back wages is not contemplated. He was at best entitled to one month's pay in lieu of one month's notice and wages of 15 days of each completed years of service as envisaged under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. He could not have been directed to be regularized in service or granted any given a temporary status. Such a scheme has been held to be unconstitutional by this Court in A. Umarani vs. Registrar, Cooperative Societies and others : (2004) 7 SCC 112 and Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Umadevi and Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1.".

11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the

law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above-mentioned

judgments, by no means it can be said that the compensation awarded

by the Industrial Adjudicator to the petitioners in lieu of their claim for

reinstatement and back wages, is inadequate.

12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any

perversity in the impugned award that may call for an interference by

this Court in exercise of its extraordinary discretionary writ jurisdiction

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This writ petition,

therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.

SEPTEMBER 01, 2009                                        S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'bsr'