Delhi High Court
National Handicrafts & Handloom ... vs Ashok Kumar & Ors on 21 February, 2012
Author: A.K.Sikri
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 21st February, 2012
+ LPA 32/2012
NATIONAL HANDICRAFTS &
HANDLOOM MUSEUM ..... Appellant
Through Mr. Jaswinder Singh, Adv.
versus
ASHOK KUMAR & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Rajiv Aggarwal with Mr. Anuj
Aggarwal, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
A.K. SIKRI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE: (ORAL)
CM No.921/2012
There is a delay of 46 days in filing the appeal. Learned counsel for
the Respondent has no objection if the same is condoned subject to payment
of some costs. For the reasons stated in this application, prayer made therein
is allowed and delay is condoned subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs
which shall be paid to the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 equally. CM stands
disposed of.
LPA 32/2012
Mr. Rajiv Aggarwal, learned counsel for the Respondents / Workmen
LPA No.32/2012 Page 1 of 5
submits that one of the workmen, namely, Mr. Mann Singh S/o Shri Lal
Singh (Respondent No.4) is not interested in this litigation. In fact even the
amount of Rs.1,76,000/- deposited by the Appellant in this Court has not
been withdrawn by him and this amount can be refunded to the Appellant.
2. The Respondents/Workmen were appointed on daily wage basis some
time in the year 1988. When their services were terminated, they raised
industrial dispute challenging the said termination. The dispute was referred
with the following terms of reference:
"Whether the action of the management of M/s. National
Handicrafts & Handlooms Museum, Pragati Maidan, New
Delhi in terminating the services of S/Shri Ashok Kumar,
Vijender Singh, Man Singh and Uday Vir Singh is justified? If
not, what relief the workman concerned are entitled to?"
3. After recording the evidence, the learned Industrial Tribunal recorded
a finding of fact that these workmen had worked for more than 240 days in a
year and, therefore, their termination was in violation of Section 25F of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as the mandatory compensation and notice pay
was not given to them before termination of their services. Holding the
termination to be illegal and unjustified on the aforesaid ground, in the
award dated 28.2.2001 rendered by the Industrial Tribunal, reinstatement
with backwages was granted. Though the Respondents/Workmen were
LPA No.32/2012 Page 2 of 5
working on daily wage, the Industrial Tribunal also held that these Workmen
were entitled to get the similar pay scale and other service benefits equal to
their counterparts performing identical jobs. The Appellant preferred the
writ petition against the aforesaid award and the writ petition has been
dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment dated
1.9.2011. This appeal assails that order of the learned Single Judge. Notice
in this appeal was issued limited to the question as to whether lump sum
compensation be granted to the Workmen in lieu of reinstatement and
backwages. Therefore, we have heard the learned counsel for the parties
today on this aspect.
4. Insofar as the Workmen are concerned, as stated above, there is an
award of the Industrial Tribunal in their favour granting reinstatement and
backwages. As per the award, they are entitled to the same pay scale and
other service benefits which are given to regular employees. Further, this
award has been upheld by the learned Single Judge.
5. On the other hand, we find that there are certain circumstances which
weigh in favour of the Appellant as well. It is not in dispute that the
Respondents/Workmen were engaged only on daily wage basis and the
amount of daily wage at that time was Rs.33/- per day. It is also not in
dispute that all these Workmen/Respondents hardly worked for a period of
LPA No.32/2012 Page 3 of 5
two years. The purported termination of their services was way back in the
year 1990 and 22 years have passed in the process. Though, the Tribunal
has ordered payment of wages at the same rate which was given to regular
employees, the terms of reference did not include this aspect and to this
extent the award of the learned Labour Court, ex facie, is not proper. On the
basis of pay scale given to regular employees, the backwages are calculated
at Rs.14.5 lacs after adjusting the amount of Rs.1,76,000/- which is already
paid. Although the Appellant did not challenge this aspect, however, while
determining the question whether lump sum compensation is to be paid to
the Workmen, we would like to keep this aspect in mind.
6. It is also to be kept in mind that termination is held to be illegal only
on technical ground, namely, non-compliance of the provisions of Section
25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. When we weigh and balance the
aforesaid considerations in favour of the Workmen as well as in favour of
the management, we are of the opinion that interest of justice would be met
by making lump sum compensation of Rs.5 lacs to each of these three
Workmen. These Workmen have already been paid Rs.1,76,000/- which
shall accordingly be adjusted. Remaining amount shall be paid by the
Appellant to the Workmen/Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 within a period of two
months from today. Impugned award is modified and the order of the
LPA No.32/2012 Page 4 of 5
learned Single Judge is modified to that extent. We make it clear that if the
remaining amount is not paid by the Appellant to the Workmen /
Respondent Nos.1 to 3 within two months from today, the Workmen /
Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 shall be entitled to interest @ 12% per annum from
the date of this order.
7. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is disposed of accordingly.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
FEBRUARY 21, 2012
dk
