Delhi High Court
M/S. Jai Auto Industries vs Sh. Maman Singh on 17 May, 2010
Author: Manmohan Singh
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI
+ WP (C) No. 6408/2006
M/S. JAI AUTO INDUSTRIES .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Satender Verma, Advocate
Versus
SH. MAMAN SINGH .....Respondent
Through: Nemo.
Judgment pronounced on : 17th May, 2010
Coram:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported No
in the Digest?
MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner M/s.
Jai Auto Industries under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
quashing/setting aside the award dated 21.10.2005 awarding
compensation of Rs.50,000/- in favour of the workman.
2. The main contention of the petitioner is that initially the
petitioner offered Rs.40,000/- as lump sum amount to settle the matter
amicably ignoring the fact that the respondent did not report for duty
despite a specific offer and remained absent which disentitled the
respondent from any relief. It is further argued by the learned counsel
for the petitioner that the Labour Court exceeded its power in awarding
Rs.50,000/- to the workman when the Labour Court answered the
reference against the workman holding that the workman had stopped
reporting for duties. Various decisions have been referred in the
grounds of appeal.
3. I have gone through the award passed by the Labour Court
and the main reasons for awarding Rs.50,000/- to the workman are
mentioned in paras 8 and 9 of the award. They read as under:
"8. From the perusal I found that order sheet of dtd.
19.7.2004 there is a noting by my Predecessor that during
the argument from both the sides and for settlement they
were given time and when they came back the employer
offered a sum of Rs.40,000/- as lump-sum compensation
but the workman did not come forward to accept it.
Anyhow I find that workman did not go to join the services
of the management even after receiving a letter to which he
gave his explanation that he was fearing to be involved by
the management. In any case, it shows that it is the
workman who did not dare to join for whatever may be the
reasons. In these facts and circumstances of the matter, the
reference has to be answered against the workman and it is
held that it is the workman who stopped reporting for duty.
9. So far as the relief is concerned the management offered
already a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand).
However, the admitted fact of the matter is that the
workman served to the management from 1985 to 1997 i.e.
for about 12 years and his last drawn wages were Rs.2232/-
per month and the dispute is pending since 1997. In these
facts and circumstances of the matter I grant a sum of
Rs.50,000/- to be paid by the management to the claimant."
4. After having gone through the reasons given by the Labour
Court, this Court is of the opinion that it will not interfere with the
award passed by the Labour Court due to the reason that admittedly, the
petitioner had given an offer before the Labour Court to pay a sum of
Rs.40,000/- as lump-sum compensation which has been observed by the
Labour Court also. Secondly, the workman served the management
from 1985 to 1997 i.e. for 12 years and considering all the facts and
circumstances, the Labour Court has granted him a sum of Rs.50,000/-
to be paid by the management.
5. During the course of arguments, it has not been denied by the
counsel for the petitioner that there was an offer to settle the dispute
between the parties for a sum of Rs.40,000/- as lump-sum
compensation.
6. Without going into any technicalities of the matter, I am of
the view that the view taken by the Labour Court is reasonable and this
Court does not want to interfere with the finding given by it. The writ
petition is therefore, dismissed. No orders as to costs.
MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
MAY 17, 2010
jk
