Bindan Singh vs The Institute Of Company ...
2011 Latest Caselaw 2572 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+            LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 449/2011

                                             Date of order: 12th May, 2011

       BINDAN SINGH                               ..... Appellant
                             Through   Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Adv.
                    versus

       THE INSTITUTE OF COMPANY SECRETARY OF IDNIA
                                      ..... Respondents
                     Through

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

SANJIV KHANNA, J.:

       Counsel for the appellant submits that the compensation of

Rs. 45,000/- awarded by the Industrial Adjudicator in lieu of

reinstatement and back wages and upheld by the single Judge should be

enhanced. He submits that even in cases of casual workers substantially

higher compensation is awarded. He commended us to a decision of a

single Judge of this Court in Management of Garrison Engineer Vs.

Bachhu Singh 2010 (115) DRJ 576.

2.     The Industrial Adjudicator and the learned single Judge have

decided the present case on its own peculiar facts. It has come on record

that the appellant was working with another concern, namely, Unique

Consultants as a peon. M/s. Unique Consultants was the sole

LPA Nos. 449/2011                                        Page 1 of 2
 proprietorship of Mrs. Alka Gupta, whose husband was a member of the

respondent institute. While the appellant was working with M/s Unique

Consultants, he was employed as a part-time peon on a salary of Rs.550/-

per month from 20th September, 1989 to 10th August, 1990. It has also

come on record that the appellant had worked as an Accountant in M/s

Tarun Printers from 1st May, 1994 to 31st March, 1998. The appellant was

never appointed in terms of the rules framed by the respondent-institute

and was ineligible for permanent appointment.

3.      Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, we do not find any reason to

interfere with the compensation awarded by the Industrial Adjudicator

and upheld by the single Judge and accordingly the appeal is dismissed

without any order as to costs.


                                            SANJIV KHANNA, J.

CHIEF JUSTICE MAY 12, 2011 NA