Radhey Shyam vs Mcd
2010 Latest Caselaw 5010 Del

                                                           UNREPORTABLE


*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                              W.P. (C) No.7327/2010


                                         Date of Decision: October 29, 2010


       RADHEY SHYAM                        ..... Petitioner
                          through Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate


                     versus


       MCD                                 ..... Respondent
                          through Ms. Saroj Bidawat with Mr. Hari
                          Om Sharma, Advocate


       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA

1.     Whether the reporters of local papers 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

REKHA SHARMA, J. (ORAL)

This writ-petition has been filed by the petitioner feeling

aggrieved by the order of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-VI,

Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi dated August 17, 2006 granting him

` 15,000/- as compensation in lieu of his reinstatement despite holding

that he had worked for more than 240 days and yet, his services were

terminated without following the procedure laid down in Section 25F of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the

compensation of ` 15,000/- is far too less especially when the Labour

WP(C) No.7327/2010 Page 1 Court has found his termination to be illegal on account of

non-compliance of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

On the other hand, it is submitted by learned counsel for the

respondent that the finding of the Labour Court that the petitioner had

worked for 240 days continuously is contrary to the records. According

to the counsel, he did work for 240 days but intermittently and,

therefore, Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was not

attracted. In any case, it is further submitted that the services of the

petitioner were dispensed with by the respondent in the year 1997 and

that, having regard to the fact that in the year 1997, the minimum

wages were not much, ` 15,000/- awarded by the Labour Court is just

and fair compensation.

Having heard learned counsels for the parties, I am of the view

that it is not open to the respondent to contend that the petitioner had

not worked for 240 days continuously. If the respondent was

aggrieved by the finding of the Tribunal, it ought to have assailed the

same which it chose not to do so. It is the petitioner who has come

before this Court and it is he alone who can derive benefit if the order

assailed is found to be illegal or unjust.

Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner had worked with the

respondent and that too for a short period between April 15, 1996 to

June 30, 1997 I feel that the order of the Labour Court granting

compensation in lieu of reinstatement is not unreasonable, but I do feel

that the compensation of ` 15,000/- is not adequate. Hence, I enhance

the same from ` 15,000/- to ` 30,000/-. The respondent is directed to

make the payment of ` 30,000/- to the petitioner within four weeks

from now.

WP(C) No.7327/2010                                                     Page 2
        The writ petition is disposed of.



                                           REKHA SHARMA, J.
OCTOBER 29, 2010
PC.




WP(C) No.7327/2010                                       Page 3