South Delhi Municipal ... vs Budh Prakash
2013 Latest Caselaw 1588 Del

$~12
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+    LPA 202/2013
     SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
                                                                      ..... Appellant
                  Through:             Ms. Saroj Bidawat, Adv.
                  versus
      BUDH PRAKASH
                                                                    ..... Respondent
                          Through:     None
     CORAM:
     HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
                      ORDER

% 08.04.2013 LPA 202/2013 & CM 5459/2013 (stay) & CM 5460/2013 (delay) The respondent was engaged as Baildar on muster roll basis with the appellant SDMC. Alleging termination of his service, the respondent raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. At the time the services of the respondent were terminated, he had put in service of more than one year with the appellant. The Labour Court vide award dated 16.12.2006 held that termination of the services of the respondent was illegal and there was no voluntary act of abandonment of service, by the respondent, as was contended by the appellant. Accordingly, the appellant was directed to reinstate the respondent with effect from 14.6.1996 with all consequential benefits and also pay 50% backwages with regularization of service of the respondent. The appellant filed W.P(C) No. 5095/2007 challenging the award of the Labour Court. The learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 9.7.2012 substituted the award of the Labour Court by direction to the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before us by way of this appeal.

The learned counsel for the appellant states that in fact they have already paid the wages to the respondent up to December, 2010 without taking any work from him and, therefore, no compensation should have been awarded to the respondent.

In our view, the amount of compensation awarded by the Labour Court being very small, it would not be necessary for us to go into the merits of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. In case we issue notice to the respondent, the expenditure which he may have to incur in defending the appeal may come to more than the amount of compensation awarded to him by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal, without going into the merit of the order passed by the learned Single Judge and solely on account of the amount of compensation being very small. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs.

CHIEF JUSTICE

V.K. JAIN, J APRIL 08, 2013 rd