Shri Soudan Singh vs University Of Delhi
2014 Latest Caselaw 4795 Del

$-6
*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

               +   LPA 315/2014 and CM No.6644/2014

%                      Date of decision : 24th September, 2014

       SHRI SOUDAN SINGH                   ..... Appellant
                     Through :        Mr. Vikram Aggarwal, Adv.

                         versus

       UNIVERSITY OF DELHI                  ..... Respondent
                     Through :        Mr. Shiv Ram Singh, Adv.

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA


GITA MITTAL, J. (Oral)

1. The appellant has assailed the judgment dated 25 th November, 2013 of this court passed in W.P.(C)No.1492/2002. By this judgment, the learned Single Judge of this court modified the industrial award dated 27th February, 2001 directing the University of Delhi to reinstate the appellant - workman with full backwages and continuity of service. Instead of this award, the learned Single Judge directed the award of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the appellant. It was further directed that this amount of Rs.1,00,000/- may not be adjusted against the amount paid by the University of Delhi in compliance with the order under Section 17B of the

Industrial Disputes Act while making payment of the compensation.

2. It is undisputed that the appellant was employed as a Peon in the Department of Social Work w.e.f. 30th October, 1985 on daily wages on a consolidated salary of Rs.500/- per month. His emoluments were increased from time to time till he was confirmed as a Class IV employee in the pay-scale of Rs.750- 1200/- per month. On 30th August, 1990, the appellant had fallen sick and applied for medical leave. He was operated in St. Stephens' Hospital, Delhi on 24th September, 1990. After recovery, on 5th November, 1990, when the appellant reported for duty, he was orally told that his services stood terminated. As the demand notice dated 27th March, 1992 did not bring any fruitful results, the appellant filed industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal and culminated in the aforenoticed award dated 27th February, 2001.

3. This award directing reinstatement of the appellant with full backwages and continuity of service was assailed by University of Delhi by way of W.P.(C)No.1492/2002 which has resulted in the impugned judgment dated 25th November, 2013. So far as the facts giving rise to the instant case are concerned, the learned Single Judge has agreed with Industrial Adjudicator to the effect that the appellant had worked continuously for 240 days in a year preceding his termination. It was further held by the learned Single Judge that the University had failed to comply with the mandatory provision of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. While

denying the prayer for regularization, the learned Single Judge has held that reinstatement with full backwages was not the rule of thumb wherever termination is held to be illegal as in the present case observing that the appellant had worked for five years before his termination in the year 1990. However, since 23 years had gone by at the time of adjudication of the writ petition, it was held that reinstatement with full backwages would not be appropriate relief. In these circumstances, the court awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- as just and adequate subject to the above adverting conclusions. It is noteworthy that the University of Delhi has not laid any challenge to the said judgment of the learned Single Judge. The appellant, however, is aggrieved by the modification of the industrial award for reinstatement and backwages in his favour and has filed the instant appeal.

4. During the pendency of the appeal before us, we had referred the matter for mediation with the consent of both the parties by an order dated 30th May, 2014. We have received a failure report from the mediation. The learned counsel for the appellant would make a grievance that the respondent was not up to examining any reasonable reasons for settlement.

5. It is noteworthy that at the time of filing of the appeal, the appellant had filed a certificate dated 6th April, 2009 issued by the Office of Medical Superintendent of Hindu Rao Hospital (Municipal Corporation of Delhi) to the effect that the appellant was suffering from 60% disability of both lower limbs

(parapuleses) (L.M.N.) and spine and that he was a permanently handicapped person.

6. There can be no dispute to the enunciation of law by the learned Single Judge to the effect that reinstatement with full backwages or part backwages is not an absolute rule of thumb for every case where termination is held illegal and that each case has to be viewed in its own facts. As on the date of present adjudication, more than 24 years have passed since services of the appellant were terminated. The appellant was working as a daily wage employee with the respondent. It therefore, may not be appropriate to direct the reinstatement of the appellant.

7. However, the compensation does not appear to be fair or reasonable. The petitioner has been fighting for his rights since 1992. His fight culminated in the favourable award dated 27 th February, 2001. The University's writ petition of 2002 was decided by the impugned order dated 25th November, 2013. The only reason for denying reinstatement to the appellant is the passage of time since his services were terminated. No fault for the same is attributable to the appellant and he deserves to be adequately compensated. In our view, in addition to the amount of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, the appellant deserves to be paid an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation instead of reinstatement and backwages without any kind of adjustment as has been directed by the learned Single Judge. We direct accordingly. Such amount shall be paid by the respondent within a period of four weeks from today.

8. In case the full amount is not paid within such period, the appellant shall be entitled to simple interest @ 9% per annum on the expiry of the period of four weeks.

9. This order has been passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case especially the fact that the appellant was undergoing medical treatment at the time of his unfair termination of services and his resultant disability of 60%. It shall not be treated as a precedent in any other case.

10. This appeal is allowed in the above terms.

11. The pending application also stands disposed of.

GITA MITTAL, J

J.R. MIDHA, J SEPTEMBER 24, 2014 aj