Delhi High Court
M/S Mirc Electronics Limited vs Shashank Gupta & Anr on 20 December, 2016
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 20th December, 2016
+ W.P.(C) 279/2014 & CM No.41892/2016
57 M/S MIRC ELECTRONICS LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Birendra K. Mishra and
Ms. Poonam, Advs. with Mr.
Ziynal Rehman, AR for MIRC.
versus
SHASHANK GUPTA & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, ASC with
Mr. Samith, Adv.
+ W.P.(C) 2410/2015 & CM No.7812/2016
58 SHASHANK GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, ASC with
Mr. Samith, Adv.
versus
M/S MIRC ELECTRONICS LIMITED ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Birendra K. Mishra and
Ms. Poonam, Advs. with Mr.
Ziynal Rehman, AR for MIRC
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Both the parties have challenged the award of the Labour Court
whereby compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- has been awarded by the
Labour Court to the workman in lieu of reinstatement and back wages.
2. The petitioner in W.P.(C) 279/2014 is seeking setting aside of
the award whereas the petitioner in W.P.(C) 2410/2015 is seeking
enhancement of the compensation.
3. Mr. Shashank Gupta, hereinafter referred to as workman, joined
the petitioner's sister company, M/s Onida Savak Limited in the year
1992. On 01st September, 1998, the workman was transferred to
another sister company, M/s Monika Electronics Limited where he
worked till July, 2002. In 2005 M/s Onida Savak Limited merged with
the M/s MIRC Electronics Limited (petitioner in W.P.(C) 279/2014)
whereupon the workman was absorbed as its employee. On 30th June,
2008, the Management terminated the services of the workman on the
ground that the services of the workman were no more required. The
workman raised an industrial dispute which resulted in the impugned
award.
4. The petitioner in W.P.(C) 279/2014 has challenged the award
on the ground that the employee was working in managing and
supervisory category and was not a workman. It is further submitted
that the employee obtained full and final payment from M/s Monika
Electronics Limited on 11th July, 2002 and thereafter, worked with the
management only for a period of three years. It is further submitted
that the management offered a position to the employee in Thane on
25th October, 2010 which the employee refused to accept.
5. Learned counsel for the employee urged that the employer has
indulged in unfair practice by shifting the employee from its one
concern to its sister concern. It is further submitted that offer of
compensation in 2002 was another ploy to uproot the employee from
his permanent place of residence and take him to a distant place and
treat him in the similar manner as done in the past. It is further
submitted that the posting in Thane was offered as a fresh employment
and, therefore, was just another ploy to come out from this litigation
and frustrate the employee.
6. On consideration of the rival contentions of the parties, this
Court is of the view that there is no infirmity in the finding of the
Labour Court with respect to the status of the workman and his
termination. This Court also agrees with the finding of the Labour
Court in not granting reinstatement with back wages to the employee
and instead award lump-sum compensation in lieu of the
reinstatement. However, the compensation awarded to the employee
for 16 years of devoted services to the employer warrants
enhancement. The compensation awarded by the Labour Court is
enhanced from Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.8,00,000/-.
7. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. CM
No.41892/2016 is also disposed of.
8. The employer has already deposited Rs.5,75,000/- with the
Registrar General of this Court in terms of the order dated 25 th
February, 2015 and the said amount is lying in fixed deposit. The
balance award amount, after adjusting the maturity amount of the
FDR, be deposited by the employer within a period of four weeks
from today. In the event of failure of employer to deposit the said
amount within four weeks, the employer be liable to pay interest @
9% after the expiry of the three weeks. The employer shall approach
the UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch to ascertain the balance in
the FDR as on today.
9. Learned counsel for the employer submits that the employee has
filed various cases against the employer which he should withdraw
before release of the award amount to him. The employee present in
Court along with his counsel agrees to withdraw all the cases within a
period of two weeks of the deposit of the balance award amount by the
employer with the Registrar General of this Court. The award amount
shall be released to the employee after the withdrawal of all the cases.
10. List for disbursement of the award amount on 02nd February,
2017.
11. Learned counsel for the employee submits that the employer be
directed to issue an experience certificate to the employee to enable
him to apply and obtain alternate employment. Let the experience
certificate be produced on the next date of hearing.
12. Copy of this judgment be given dasti to learned counsels for the
parties under signature of Court Master.
DECEMBER 20, 2016 J.R. MIDHA, J.
ak
