Jai Ram vs Management Of M/S Sona Fashions ...
2011 Latest Caselaw 3979 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                         Date of decision: 16th August, 2011.

+                         W.P.(C) 1136/2008

%      JAI RAM                                                    ...Petitioner
                          Through:      Mr. Gajendra Giri, Adv.

                                     Versus

    MANAGEMENT OF M/S SONA FASHIONS
    PVT. LTD.                          ....... Respondent
                 Through: None.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.     Whether reporters of Local papers may        Not necessary
       be allowed to see the judgment?

2.     To be referred to the reporter or not?             Not necessary

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

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petitioner workman impugns the award dated 10th November,

2003 of the Industrial Adjudicator on the following reference:-

"Whether the services of Sh. Jai Ram have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"

and though holding the existence of relationship of employer and

employee between the petitioner workman and the respondent employer and

though further holding that the respondent employer had terminated the

services of the petitioner workman on 21st March, 1998 without complying

with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and hence

illegally and unjustifiably but granting the relief of lump-sum compensation

of `60,000/- only to the petitioner workman.

2. This petition was filed in the year 2008 i.e. after nearly five years

from the award. Notice of the petition was issued on the plea of the counsel

for the petitioner workman that considering that the petitioner workman had

been in employment since the year 1991, the compensation of `60,000/- was

meager. The respondent employer was got served with the notice of the

petition only for 5th August, 2011 when the counsel for the respondent

employer appeared. It was enquired on that date whether the amount of

`60,000/- awarded by the Industrial Adjudicator had been received by the

petitioner workman. The answer was in the negative. It was further

enquired whether the respondent employer had challenged the award. The

answer was again in the negative. The counsel for the respondent employer

was unable to explain as to why the award amount had not been paid till

now. In the circumstances, the Director of the respondent employer was

directed to appear before this Court in person for today along with a bank

draft in favour of the petitioner workman for the award amount together with

interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of the award and till the

date of payment.

3. Today, inspite of passover none has appeared for the respondent. It

appears that the respondent employer wants to avoid payment of the award

amount also.

4. The counsel for the petitioner workman has stated that the award does

not even grant any interest to the petitioner workman and the petitioner

workman would be satisfied if the award is modified by awarding interest as

already directed at 10% per annum on the award amount from the date of the

award and till the date of payment and the amount is paid immediately. He

confirms that the award amount has not been paid as yet.

5. The award to the extent, it does not grant any interest on the award

amount from the date of the award till the date of payment, is indeed found

to be erroneous. It is generally found that there is long delay between the

date of the award and the date of the payment and unless interest for such

period is awarded, the amount awarded, by the date of payment, owing to

inflation may not have the value which the Industrial Adjudicator intended it

to have.

6. The request of the petitioner workman is therefore found to be

reasonable. Even otherwise the conduct of the respondent employer of not

paying the award amount inspite of having not challenged the award and

inspite of direction of this Court on 5th August, 2011 is found to be

deplorable.

7. The award of the Industrial Adjudicator is accordingly modified to the

extent of granting future interest at 10% per annum from the date of award

and till the date of payment on the awarded amount.

8. The petition is disposed of. The respondent employer is directed to,

within two weeks of the demand of the petitioner workman along with a

copy of this order, pay the amount of `60,000/- together with interest at the

rate of 10% per annum from the date of the award and till the date of

payment to the petitioner workman, failing which the authorities i.e. the

Labour Commissioner and the District Collector are directed to forthwith

have the amount recovered as arrears of land revenue from the respondent

employer. For the failure of the respondent employer to comply with the

directions contained in the order dated 5th August, 2011, the respondent is

also burdened with costs of `15,000/- payable to the petitioner workman

along with amount aforesaid, failing which the same shall also incur interest

at the rate of 10% per annum from this date till the date of payment.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) AUGUST 16, 2011 bs