Delhi High Court
Pran Gopal Chatterjee vs M/S. Jain Sons Export Corporation on 16 December, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 16th December, 2014
+ W.P.(C) 3653/2011
PRAN GOPAL CHATTERJEE ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. Deepak K. Nag and
Ms. Alka Chojar, Adv.
versus
M/S. JAIN SONS EXPORT CORPORATION ..... Respondent
Represented by: Ld. Counsel (appearance
not given)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Vide the present petition, petitioner seeks setting aside the
impugned order dated 14.01.2010 only to the extent that the
petitioner be directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and
full back wages and other benefits and dues.
2. In alternative, the petitioner has prayed that an amount of
Rs.5,00,000/- be granted in his favour in order to meet the ends of
justice.
3. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has
confined to his prayer that the compensation amount may be
increased from Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/-.
4. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Labour
Court in ID No 259/2000. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the
ld. Labour Court had framed issues as under:
"(i) Whether the applicant is not an workman as defined
in Section 2 (S) of the I.D. Act?
(ii) Whether the applicant has abandoned the job on his
own?"
5. Admittedly, both the issues have been decided in favour of
the petitioner and against the respondent / establishment.
6. The petitioner joined the respondent / Management in the
first week of June, 1975 on a consolidated salary of Rs.350/- per
month. He was in the capacity of clerical / manual staff and
working as a store keeper. He used to keep the inventories of the
stores and assist the officials of production department and run
errands and his last drawn salary was Rs.9,000/- per month.
7. Case of the petitioner before the Labour Court was that in the
month of August, 1999, petitioner was posted at Kirti Nagar Branch
and was orally asked to report at another sister concern of the
Management at Faridabad. During his tenure at Faridabad, he was
told by the Management that he needs not to sign the Attendance
Register. Further, he was orally asked to report Jainsons Export
Corporation Office at E-42, Connaught Place, New Delhi, w.e.f.
25.11.1999. When he reported there, the Management started
pressurising him to resign from the said organisation. Therefore, he
was not allowed to sign the attendance Register w.e.f. 29.11.1999,
however, from 25.11.1999 to 30.11.1999, he was allowed to sign on
computer print outs.
8. The Respondent Management in its written statement, filed
before the Labour Court taken the ground that the petitioner was
working as supervisor / Manager and drawing a salary of Rs.9,000/-
per month. He was the head and overall Incharge of the
manufacturing unit at 9/45, Kirti Nagar Industrial Area, New Delhi,
and was having supervisory and Managerial powers.
9. It was also rebutted that the petitioner was stopped to enter in
the premises. In fact, the Management had been passing through
recession and services of the petitioner became redundant / surplus.
The petitioner was adjusted and deputed with M/s. Jainsons
Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. at Faridabad where the respondent /
Management had a dealearship with Daewoo Motor India Ltd. The
said company was too having difficulty in functioning. The
petitioner saw no future in the said company and offered his
resignation to the Management. He stopped reporting for duties
w.e.f 01.12.1999, but did not tender any written resignation letter.
10. The fact remains that ld. Tribunal decided both the issues in
favour of the petitioner. The said award has not been challenged by
the respondent / Management.
11. However, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent
/ workman submits that pursuant to award and order dated
14.01.2010, the petitioner was paid an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-.
Thereafter, the petitioner approached the authority under the
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which was contested by the
respondent, however, the petitioner succeeded and received an
amount of Rs.1,35,000/-. Meanwhile, the petitioner filed the
present petitioner for enhancement of the compensation amount.
12. I note, the ld. Tribunal has recorded in Para 35 of the award
that the manufacturing unit / division of the respondent /
Management stated to have been closed and the workman was
surplus. Keeping this fact into view, ld. Tribunal awarded
compensation for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-.
13. The petitioner joined the respondent Management in the
month of June, 1975 and continued up to 1999. He was getting a
salary of Rs.9,000/- per month at the time of his throwing out from
the service. The petitioner raised industrial dispute, which
ultimately decided on 14.01.2010 after almost 11 years of his legal
fight and the ld. Labour Court granted Rs.1,50,000/-, i.e., in the
year 2010.
14. Keeping in view the services rendered by the petitioner, I am
of the considered opinion that the said amount is meagre. Therefore,
I deem it proper to grant compensation for an amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner in addition to already received.
15. Accordingly, respondent / establishment is directed to pay
Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner within four weeks from today.
Failing which, the respondent shall be liable to pay interest @ 9%
per annum on delayed payment.
16. In view of above, the petition is allowed.
SURESH KAIT, J
DECEMBER 16, 2014
jg
