Delhi High Court
Baldev Singh vs The President M/S Archana Cinema ... on 27 April, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: April 27, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 6311/2010 & C.M.13398/2016
BALDEV SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. S. Janani, Advocate
versus
THE PRESIDENT M/S ARCHANA CINEMA SHOPPING
CENTRE ASSOCIATION & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Nemo
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% ORAL
Impugned Award of 13th May, 2010 directs first respondent to pay
lump sum compensation of `1,25,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum in
lieu of reinstatement and back wages to petitioner-workman. The facts as
noted in impugned Award need no reproduction for the reason that in this
petition, reinstatement instead of lump sum compensation is sought.
Petitioner-workman was appointed as Maintenance Officer by first
respondent-Management on 7th July, 1986 and without any notice or
assigning any reason, his services were terminated on 28 th October, 1998.
Trial court has held termination of petitioner's service as illegal for want
of Inquiry.
In this petition, notice sent to respondent No.1-Management has
been received back with the report of refusal. It is so evident from the
order of 4th February, 2011. Vide order of 12th August, 2011, respondent
No.1-Management has been proceeded ex parte.
Learned counsel for petitioner-workman points out that respondent
No.1-Management herein was ex parte even before trial court. The
precise submission of petitioner's counsel is that in the earlier round of
litigation, respondent No.2 herein had challenged the earlier Award of
19th November, 2004 directing petitioner's reinstatement in service with
full back wages and a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order of 14th
December, 2009 had remanded back the matter to trial court to decide as
to petitioner-workman herein is entitled to any relief against Management
of first respondent herein. So, it is submitted by petitioner's counsel that
the scope of remand was only to determine whether there is any liability
of respondent No.1 herein to reinstate petitioner in service with back
wages and not to change the nature of relief. Nothing else is urged on
behalf of petitioner except that reinstatement of petitioner-workman in
service with full back wages ought to be granted in the facts and
circumstances of this case.
Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned award and the evidence
on record, I find that a Coordinate Bench of this Court while remanding
this matter had noted that petitioner had rendered 11 years of service and
had called upon Trial Court to decide afresh as to whether petitioner is
entitled to any relief on account of alleged termination of his service by
first respondent herein. Considering the fact that petitioner was drawing
consolidated salary of `2,400/- per month when his services were
terminated on account of misconduct and the fact that 10 years service
was left as even in private employment an employee normally retires at
the age of 60 years, I find that petitioner's reinstatement in service is
unwarranted as by now he has crossed the age of retirement and because
it not the case of petitioner that he is in sound health to effectively work.
In such a situation, it is deemed appropriate to award lump sum
compensation to petitioner instead of reinstating him in service.
In the considered opinion of this Court, trial court has rightly
ordered for grant of compensation in lieu of reinstatement with back
wages. However, I find that compensation granted is somewhat on lower
side as Supreme Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Others v.
Kailash Narayan Sharma, (2014) 16 SCC 440 has laid down the
parameters for grant of compensation of `1.5 lacs in a case where an
employee has worked for a period spread over more than 7 years.
In light of the aforesaid, impugned award is modified to the extent
of enhancing the compensation amount from `1,25,000/- to `1,50,000/-
while maintaining the rate of interest granted.
Impugned Award is accordingly modified to the extent indicated
above and this petition and application are accordingly disposed of while
leaving petitioner to bear his own costs.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
APRIL 27, 2017
s/neelam
