Delhi High Court
K Mani Dhaundiyal vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors. on 5 February, 2014
Author: V. Kameswar Rao
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on February 05, 2014
+ W.P.(C) 12109/2005
K MANI DHAUNDIYAL ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.Vineet Kumar , Advocate
Versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr.V.K.Tandon, Advocate for R3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO
V.KAMESWAR RAO, J. (Oral)
W.P.(C) 12109/2005
1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the Recovery Notice dated
February 21, 2005 and the award dated March 13, 2001 passed by the
Labour court in I.D. No. 341/92, whereby the Labour Court has directed
the reinstatement of the respondent No. 3 ('respondent', in short) with
back wages and continuity in service.
2. The writ petition has been filed primarily on the ground that the
engagement of the respondent as a 'Driver' was for a short period on
trial basis. Since his services were not found satisfactory, his
engagement was terminated with full and final settlement.
3. It is noted from the award dated March 13, 2001 that the evidence
of the petitioner-Management was closed on February 12, 2001. In fact,
no arguments were advanced on behalf of the petitioner-Management.
4. The petitioner has tried to explain, non-representation before the
Labour Court. Be that as it may, it is noted that the dispute was raised in
the year 1992. The alleged termination relates back to the year 1991.
The award was passed by the Labour Court in the year 2001. Thereafter,
the writ petition was filed only in the year 2005, that too, when a
Recovery Notice was issued on February 21, 2005 for an amount of `
2,71,484/-. The matter remained pending in this Court, since then. On
January 31, 2014, on the suggestion of the Court, the parties sought time
to seek instructions from their respective clients on the settlement.
5. Today, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that his client is
ready to settle the matter between ` 15,000/- to ` 25,000/-. On the other
hand, Mr. V.K.Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
states that he will leave it for this Court to decide the amount of
compensation.
6. It is not necessary that whenever the termination is held to be bad,
reinstatement must follow (Refer to 2010 (6) SCC 773, Senior
Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic) Bhopal vs. Santosh Kumar Seal &
Ors., and 2013 (5) SCC 136, Rajasthan Development Corporation vs.
Gitam Singh). In this case, I find that the petitioner has worked for a
very brief period. It is true that he has been pursuing the litigation since
the year 1992 i.e. for the last 22 years. In the given facts, I am of the
view that an amount of ` 40,000/- is given to the respondent as
compensation in lieu of reinstatement with back wages and continuity of
service. Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection on the
payment of ` 40,000/- as compensation to settle the dispute arising from
the award in question.
7. I order accordingly that the petitioner shall pay to the respondent a
sum of ` 40,000/- within a period of two months as full and final
settlement in lieu of reinstatement with back wages and continuity of
service.
8. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
CM No. 5838/2008
In view of the order in the writ petition, this application is
dismissed.
(V.KAMESWAR RAO)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 05, 2014
akb
