Delhi High Court
M/S Kodar Industries ... vs Sandeep Chopra on 24 February, 2020
$~52
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 24.02.2020
+ W.P.(C) 1983/2020, CM APPL. 6927/2020 & CM APPL. 6928/2020
M/S KODAR INDUSTRIES (PARTNERSHIP FIRM) ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Prashant Kumar Mittal, Adv.
versus
SANDEEP CHOPRA ..... Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J. (Oral)
1. This petition impugns the award dated 30.07.2019 passed by the
learned Labour Court in LIR No 2965/2016, on the ground that the
workman has been unmeritoriously granted Rs. 60,000 towards back wages.
In the impugned order the rationale for so is, as under:-
28. As far as relief part is concerned, the workman has made
a prayer in statement of claim that he is unemployed since the
date of termination of his service and as such the management
be directed to reinstate him in service with full back wages
including benefits of continuity of service and all other
consequential benefits., However, a perusal of record reveals
that the management has filed award dated 11.01.2018 passed
by Sh. Lokesh Kumar Sharma, Ld. POLC-XK, Dwarka Courts,
Delhi, which is Ex.MW2/A. It is further revealed that in that
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed By:KAMLESH
KUMAR
Signing Date:28.02.2020
13:04:53
case the workman stated that his services were terminated by
the management (some other company) on 23.09.2013. It is
further revealed that the management has also filed photocopy
of reference as well as statement of claim of the workman in
LER. No. 8929/16 titled as Sandeep Chopra Vs. M/s ACE
Footmark Pvt. Ltd., which are Ex.MW3/A and Ex.MW3/B
respectively. The workman in his claim in case titled as
Sandeep Chopra Vs. M/s ACE Footmark Pvt. Ltd. has stated
that his services were terminated on 20.12.2011. The workman
in the present claim has stated that his services were
terminated by the management on 18.03.2008. From these
facts it is clear that the workman would be gainfully employed
somewhere else, therefore, the workman cannot be ordered to
be reinstated and a compensation in lieu of his reinstatement
would be a better option. Therefore, keeping in view all these
facts and also keeping in view of the aforesaid law points, this
court deems it appropriate to grant a lump sum compensation
to the workman in lieu of his reinstatement. The total service
tenure of the workman with the present management comes to
around 03 years and 09 months. His admitted salary was Rs.
12500/- per months. Accordingly, this court grants a lump sum
compensation of Rs. 60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand only) to
the workman in lieu of his reinstatement, back wages and
consequential benefits. The amount of compensation shall be
paid to the workman by the management within one month
from the date when this award becomes enforceable failing
which the amount shall carry an interest @ 9% p.a. from the
date it becomes due till the time it is realized. Reference is
answered and disposed off accordingly."
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the workman had
himself worked at various places, however, he is unable to show as to what
is the period for which the dismissed workman was beneficially engaged
elsewhere. Simply because the workman may have pursued the case against
other managements, would not necessarily mean that he was gainfully
employed with them or he had a valid claim against them. None of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed By:KAMLESH
KUMAR
Signing Date:28.02.2020
13:04:53
aforesaid adjudication would mean that he was gainfully engaged for the
aforesaid period, for which he has been rightly awarded a lumsump amount
of Rs. 60,000 for 3 years and 9 months @ Rs. 12,500/- per month which
otherwise would be Rs. 5,62,500/-.
3. In view of the above, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned
order. There is no merit in the petition. It, alongwith pending applications, is
dismissed.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
FEBRUARY 24, 2020
RW
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed By:KAMLESH
KUMAR
Signing Date:28.02.2020
13:04:53
