Shri Suresh Chandra Jatav vs Chief General Manager
2023 Latest Caselaw 19086 MP

                                   1
 IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       AT JABALPUR
                            BEFORE
              HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                    ON THE 9 th OF NOVEMBER, 2023
                   WRIT PETITION No. 23586 of 2019

BETWEEN:-
SHRI SURESH CHANDRA JATAV S/O SHRI MANGLA
RAM JATAV, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, VILLAGE AND
POST OFFICE TANTRA TEHSIL SABALGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)

                                                                .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PRANAY CHOUBEY - ADVOCATE )

AND
CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER DEPARTMENT OF
TELECOMMUINICATION HOSHANGABAD ROAD M.P.
CIRCLE BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                              .....RESPONDENTS


      This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
                                    ORDER

This petition is filed being aggrieved of awarded dated 25.04.2019 passed by learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Jabalpur in case No. CGIT/LC/R/108/2001 whereby learned Labour Court has directed for payment of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement after holding that the termination of the workman was wholly illegal.

Shri Choubey by placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Bhurumal (2014)7 SCC 177 and also on the judgment passed in the case of Tapas Kumar Paul

Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & another (2014)15 SCC 313, it is submitted that when there is violation of the statutory provisions and if some junior was regularized, then the terminated workman should not be denied reinstatement unless there are some other weighty reasons for adopting the course of grant of compensation instead of reinstatement.

Shri Choubey further submits that, if the Court is not inclined to grant reinstatement then at least the amount of compensation be enhanced.

After hearing Shri Choubey and going through the record, as nobody is appearing for the respondent, the certain facts are not in dispute. Petitioner/workman was engaged as a laborer from 18.11.1986 admittedly his

services came to an end from 30.04.1988, claim was filed in the year, 2001 i.e. after more than 12 years of the order. He has filed the O.A. No. 325 of 1992 before the State Administrative Tribunal which was disposed of on 21.09.1999 directing the petitioner to avail remedy before the Laour Court.

Thereafter, this claim was filed. However, there is no explanation for even delay of five years in filing the Original Application. The limitation of filing a claim under the Administrative Tribunal Act is one year and the claim was admittedly filed after more than 05 years. Therefore, when this aspect is taken into consideration and it is seen that there is a long gape between the date of petitioner's retrenchment and the date on which the award was passed i.e. almost more than 30 years, then in such facts and circumstances grant of compensation in view of reinstatement cannot be said to be unjust. Specially when there are weighty reasons for adopting the case of grant of compensation.

In the case of Tapas Kumar Paul (Supra) it is held that compensation in lieu of reinstatement may be awarded where industry is closed; where employee has superannuated or is going to retire shortly and no period of

service is left to his credit; where workman has been rendered incapacitated to discharge duties and cannot be reinstated; and when he has lost confidence of management to discharge duties. In the present case, petitioner admits that though his age is mentioned as 56 years in the cause title of the writ petition but he has attain the age of superannuation when the award was passed. Therefore, in the light of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tapas Kumar Paul (Supra) once petitioner has attain the age of superannuation, then he was not entitled to reinstatement and only for compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

Looking to the period of engagement from the month of May, 1987 to April, 1988 award of compensation at Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) cannot be said to be too meger or inappropriate under the facts and circumstance of the case.

Therefore, looking to the ratio of law laid down in the case of Tapas Kumar Paul (Supra) and also in the case of BSNL Vs. Bhurumal (supra), where it is categorically held that where reinstatement is not possible for some other weighty reasons, adopting the course of grant of compensation instead of reinstatement is just and correct, there is no illegality in the impugned award calling for interference.

Petition fails and is dismissed.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE Amitabh

AMITABH RANJAN 2023.11.09 18:37:19 +05'30'