Delhi High Court
Anil Kumar & Ors. vs The Management Of M/S Richa And ... on 29 September, 2015
Author: Sunita Gupta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 29.09.2015
+ W.P.(C) 1366/2013
ANIL KUMAR & ORS.
... Petitioners
Through: Mr Rajat Sharma, Adv.
versus
THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S RICHA
AND COMPANY .... Respondent
Through: Mr Vinay Sabharwal, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA
JUDGMENT
: SUNITA GUPTA, J.
1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India preferred
by the petitioners against the common award dated 01.06.2012 passed by the Presiding
Officer, Labour Court, Karkardooma Courts in DID Nos. 229/2011, 230/2011, 231/2011,
232/2011, 233/2011 and 234/2011 and for passing directions to reinstate the petitioners
with full back-wages.
2. It is alleged that the petitioners - workmen had been working with the
management on different capacities like tailors, etc. as skilled and semi-skilled workers
for the last several years at the last drawn monthly salary of Rs. 3437/- except for the
petitioner no. 4 whose last drawn monthly was Rs.3271/-. The services of the workmen
were illegally terminated by the respondent. The Assistant Labour Commissioner had
sent a notice under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereafter referred to
as 'the ID Act') for taking back the workers on duty but the management did not comply
with the directions. A legal notice dated 19.07.2006 was sent through the union but the
management did not reply the same. A written complaint was sent to Assistant Labour
Commissioner on which the Labour Inspector visited the management to take back the
employees on duty but the management refused to comply the directions of the Labour
Inspector. As such, the petitioner filed their statement of claim directly before the Labour
Court for their reinstatement with back-wages and other consequential benefits. Vide
order dated 01.06.2012, the Labour Court found that the termination of the petitioners
was illegal but did not direct the management to reinstate them with continuity of service
along with back-wages rather granted lump-sum compensation of Rs.30,000/- each.
3. After the writ petition was filed, vide order dated 01.03.2013, it was observed that
so far as the challenge to the award regarding denial of reinstatement and back-wages is
concerned, the petition was not entertained and limited notice was issued to the
respondent regarding enhancement of compensation. As such, the only question which
survives in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioners are entitled for enhancement
of compensation or not.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that in case the petitioners
were granted the relief of reinstatement with full back-wages, the amount would have
exceeded Rs.2.5 lacs. The petitioners were in the services of the respondent management
since 2000 and as such their length of service was about 4-6 years and as such the
compensation awarded is on very lower side. They have also suffered the litigation for
almost six years because of the illegal acts done by the respondent - management.
Reliance was placed on Faridan and State of U.P., (2010) 1 SCC 497 for submitting
that the compensation is liable to be enhanced.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the
termination of the petitioners - workmen was held to be illegal being in violation of
Section 25F of the ID Act. The only requirement of Section 25F is that the amount which
is to be paid to the employee is 15 days' pay for each year's service and a 30 days' notice
pay. That, at the most, comes to Rs.6,000/- to Rs.10,000/- whereas the learned Labour
Court already awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation and, therefore, there is no
ground for enhancement of compensation. Reliance was placed on M/s Genesis Printers
v Shri Rati Ram Jatav Presiding Officer & Ors., (2010) 174 DLT 431.
6. The case of the petitioners - workmen before the Labour Court was that they
were working with the management in different capacities for the last over several years.
However, when they made a complaint for providing legal facilities through the labour
union before the Labour Department, the management terminated their services without
following the norms of Industrial Disputes Act. The management took the plea that the
petitioners - workmen were appointed on probation basis for a period of six months.
During the probation period, their work and performance was not found satisfactory yet
their probation period was extended for a further period of six months and they were
given an opportunity to improve their work and performance but they failed to improve
themselves. Accordingly, the probation period of the workers was discontinued. That
being so, the case is covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act and there was no
requirement of complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Act. The Labour
Court went through Rule 26 of the Standing Orders providing for probation and came to
conclusion that the plea raised by the management is contrary to the said clause of the
Standing Orders. On the basis of material on record, it was held that the petitioners-
workmen were in regular service of the management and were getting GPF and Provident
Fund facilities and that being so their termination was illegal. However, relying upon
judgments of this Court in Mohd. Shakir v Sunder Lal Jain Hospital, (2009) 122 FLR
618 and Indian Acrylics Ltd. and Anr. v Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala and
Ors., 2010 LLR 794, the petitioners - workmen were awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- as
compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back-wages.
7. In Faridan and State of U.P. (supra), the compensation of Rs.50,000/- awarded
by the High Court was considered to be too meagre in the present day affairs and the
same was enhanced to Rs.2 lacs. Again in Narendra Kumar v The Regional Manager
Punjab National Bank and Ors., (2009) 14 SCC 219, the Labour Court awarded a sum
of Rs.50,000/- as compensation in lieu of reinstatement into service. The writ petition
filed before the High Court was dismissed. The matter went to the Supreme Court. It was
observed that ordinarily the Court would not have interfered with the concurrent findings
of the Labour Court and the High Court, yet, the court cannot be obdurate to the hard
realities of life and a humane and pragmatic approach to the various factors, including the
steep escalation in prices in the commodity market, the cost of living, the cost of
education of children etc have to be considered. Therefore, the compensation was
enhanced from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1 lac. In M/s Genesis Printers (supra) relied upon by
the learned counsel for the respondent - management, despite noticing that the
retrenchment amount would not have exceeded Rs.2400/- yet this Court awarded a sum
of Rs.1 lac for illegal retrenchment in violation of Section 25F. Therefore, this judgment
does not help the respondent.
8. In the instant case, as per the case of the petitioners-workmen, they were in the
employment of the respondent - management ranging from 2000 to 2002 before their
termination in the year 2006. Meaning thereby that the petitioners - workmen were in the
employment of the respondent - management for a period of four to six years. Under the
circumstances, the amount of compensation of Rs.30,000/- as awarded by the Labour
Court in lieu of reinstatement and back-wages is too meagre and the same is enhanced to
Rs.1 lac each, which shall be paid by the respondent - management within a period of
eight (8) weeks from the date of this order and in the event of default, the same shall be
payable with interest @ 9% per annum.
The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(SUNITA GUPTA)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 29 2015/rd
