V.K. Talwar vs Presiding Officer, Labour ...
2010 Latest Caselaw 1012 Del

*         HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI

+         LPA No. 62 of 2010

                     Judgment reserved on: February 17, 2010

%                    Judgment delivered on: February 22, 2010

V.K. Talwar
S/o Late Shri Hari Kishan Lal
R/o B-110, Sector-27
Noida (UP)                                         ...Appellant

                     Through Mr. Rameshwar Dayal with
                             Mr.Bhupendra Chaturvedi, Advs.

                     Versus

1.   Presiding Officer
     Labour Court-IX
     Room No. 56
     Karkardooma Court
     Shahdara, Delhi.

2.   IRCON International Limited
     Through its Managing Director
     Plot No. C-4, District Centre
     Saket, New Delhi.

3.   Secretary, Labour
     Govt. of NCT of Delhi
     5, Sham Nath Marg,
     Delhi.                                        ...Respondents

Through None

Coram:

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Not necessary

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Not necessary

MADAN B. LOKUR, ACJ

The Appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 20 th October,

2009 passed by a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (Civil) No.

503/2009.

2. The Appellant had joined the services of Respondent No.2 as

a Junior Engineer (Electrical) on 31st October, 1981 in Delhi. Two years

later, on 10th November, 1983 he was transferred to Korba (Madhya

Pradesh). The Appellant challenged his transfer by filing a suit for a

permanent injunction, which was granted ex parte by the then Sub-

Judge, First Class, Delhi. On 7th December, 1983, the services of the

Appellant were terminated by Respondent No.2 apparently without

holding any departmental inquiry. The services of another workman

Ajay Kumar were also simultaneously terminated.

3. The Appellant challenged the termination of his services by

raising an industrial dispute while Ajay Kumar filed a writ petition

which eventually came to be decided by the Supreme Court in Indian

Railway Construction Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar, AIR 2003 SC 1843. In

that case, the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of Ajay Kumar on the

ground of loss of confidence but awarded him Rs.15 lakhs

compensation as full and final settlement of all claims.

4. Insofar as the Appellant is concerned, as mentioned above,

he raised an industrial dispute which was eventually adjudicated by an

Award dated 10th September, 2008. It is not necessary to go into the

reasons for the delay in disposal of the industrial dispute. Suffice it to

say that the Labour Court held that the termination of the services of the

Appellant were not in accordance with law. On the question of relief to

be granted, the Labour Court took into consideration the fact that the

Appellant was apparently gainfully employed (at least for some time) in

Bangkok and when he came back to India on transfer of residence, he

paid customs duty of Rs.1.58 lakhs as revealed from his passport. The

Labour Court also took into consideration the fact that the Appellant had

apparently filed a false affidavit to the effect that he was not gainfully

employed after his dismissal from service and that proceedings for

perjury had been initiated against him by the Registrar General of this

Court under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Taking these facts into account, the Labour Court awarded to the

Appellant a lump-sum amount of Rs. 2 lakhs as full and final settlement

of all his claims.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the Award dated 10 th September, 2008,

the Appellant preferred a writ petition in this Court which came to be

dismissed by the impugned order.

6. Before us, learned counsel for the Appellant contended that

since Ajay Kumar had been awarded an amount of Rs.15 lakhs as

compensation in lieu of reinstatement, the Appellant should also be

awarded a commensurate amount. In our opinion, it would not be

appropriate for us to substitute our view on the matter for the opinion

expressed by the Labour Court as well as by the learned Single Judge.

As mentioned above, what weighed with the Labour Court while

awarding Rs. 2 lakhs as compensation was the fact that the Appellant

was apparently gainfully employed in Bangkok and that he had failed to

disclose this. On the contrary, the Appellant had taken a false stand as a

result of which proceedings for perjury were initiated against him and

they are still said to be pending. Since the Appellant did not come out

with the true and correct picture, the Labour Court had no option but to

make its own assessment of the amount of compensation that should be

awarded to the Appellant. The Labour Court considered various

judgements of this Court as well as the decision of the Supreme Court in

Ajay Kumar and other cases as well and came to the conclusion that

compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs would meet the ends of justice. This view

was upheld by the learned Single Judge.

7. Given the facts of the case, we do not see any reason to take

a different view from that already expressed by the Labour Court and by

the learned Single Judge. There is no merit in this appeal. Dismissed.

                                           (MADAN B. LOKUR)
                                           ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE



February 22, 2010                          (MUKTA GUPTA)
kapil                                      JUDGE

Certified that the corrected copy of the judgment has been transmitted to the main Server.