Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/2463/2013 on 25 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
ON THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
BEFORE:
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 2463 of 2013
BETWEEN:
Executive Engineer, Construction
Division, Uttaranchal Peyjal
Nigam & others. ...Petitioners
(By Mr. Vinayak Pant & Mr. Bhupendra Bisht, Advocates)
AND:
Trilok Singh Rana & others. ...Respondents
(By Mr. Shailendra Nauriyal, Advocate for respondent
no.1 & Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Brief Holder for the State
of Uttarakhand)
JUDGMENT
This is employer's petition under Article 227
of Constitution of India against the award dated
14.05.2012 rendered by learned Labour Court,
Dehradun in Adjudication Case No. 96 of 2009. By
the said award, learned Labour Court declared
termination of respondent no. 1 from service w.e.f.
31.08.1991 to be unjust & illegal and directed for re-
instatement with payment of backwages from the
date of passing of order of reference till his re-
instatement.
2. A perusal of the order of learned Labour
Court reveals that respondent no. 1 had served for
240 days in a calendar year and petitioners' counsel is
also not disputing the said finding. Similarly, the
finding recorded by learned Labour Court,
regarding non-observance of the procedure given in
Section 6 N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,
while terminating services of respondent no. 1, is also
not questioned. Even otherwise also, these are
findings of fact, which cannot be interfered with while
exercising power of superintendence under Article 227
of Constitution of India. Although, there was delay on
the part of respondent no. 1 in raising dispute,
however, that question was dealt with by learned
Labour Court and only 50% of backwages was
awarded on that count, that too from the date of
order of reference till his re-instatement.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that respondent no. 1 had served only for about two
years in the establishment of the petitioner, therefore,
the direction to re-instate the respondent no. 1 with
50% backwages, though given only from the date of
order of reference, would be unjust.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has
placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Incharge Officer and
another Vs. Shankar Shetty, reported in (2010) 9 SCC
126, where Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that
where a workman has worked for a few years before
his termination, then relief of re-instatement would
not be proper and grant of monetary compensation
would meet the ends of justice. He, therefore,
submits that petitioner is ready to pay a reasonable
amount, as compensation, as is determined by this
Court, and the award be modified accordingly.
5. Having regard to the fact that respondent
no. 1 was engaged as daily wager for about two years
only, it appears to this Court that relief of re-
instatement cannot be said to be justified and,
instead of re-instatement, monetary benefit would
meet the ends of justice. In the considered opinion of
this Court, the compensation of ` 2,50,000/-, in lieu
of re-instatement, would be appropriate, just &
equitable.
6. Accordingly, the award is modified and it is
provided that petitioners shall pay a sum of
` 2,50,000/- to respondent no. 1, within four weeks
from today, failing which, the same shall carry
interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum.
7. Registry is directed to release the sum of
` 1,00,000/- deposited by the petitioners, in terms of
order dated 08.10.2013, which is invested in a fixed
deposit scheme in a nationalized bank, in favour of
the petitioners, within ten days from today.
8. With the aforesaid observation, the writ
petition stands disposed of.
(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.)
Arpan
