Main Pal vs Regional Director
2022 Latest Caselaw 266 UK

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                       AT NAINITAL

                   Writ Petition (M/S) No.1603 of 2020

Main Pal                                                           .......Petitioner

                                           Vs.

Regional Director, Social Forestry, Forest Department,

                                                                      .....Respondent

Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, Standing Counsel, for the State/respondent.

Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J (Oral)

The petitioner, who is a workman in the present Writ Petition, has put a challenge to an award rendered by the Labour Court on 30.06.2020, in Adjudication Case No.418 of 2009, "Mainpal Singh Vs. Divisional Director, Social Forestry Department", wherein, as per the reference made for adjudication, the reference was with regards to as to the action of the respondent of dispensing the services of the petitioner with effect from 30.06.1996, could be justified or not.

2. The learned Labour Court by the impugned award had answered the reference against the workman, but while rendering the award on 30.06.2020, instead of passing of an order of reinstatement though the order of removal has been set aside, but alternatively in the light of the judgment referred, thereto, as rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, an amount of compensation to the tune of Rupees One Lakh, has been determined to be made payable along with an interest @ 6%.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits, that under almost under a similar set of circumstances a workman have put a challenge to the award of the Labour Court in a bunch of Writ Petitions, which was decided by the coordinate Bench of this Court, with the leading Writ Petition, being WPMS No.2989 of 2018, "Ram Prem Vs. Deputy Director Animal Husbandry and Wool Research

Centre Dehradun & others", and in the said judgment rendered by the coordinate Bench of this Court on 16.11.2021, the amount of compensation which has been awarded in the respective adjudication cases has been enhanced in the ratio as provided in paragraph No.5, and accordingly, the interest too has been modified to be made applicable as per the observations made in paragraph No.5 and 6, of the judgment, which is extracted hereunder:-

5. This Court is of the opinion that the amount of compensation awarded is grossly inadequate as the petitioners have worked for the department of Animal and Husbandry for almost 13 to 14 years, and in such situations, in stead of reinstating them with full back wages, a sum of Rs.10 lakhs to be paid to each of them as compensation for illegal retrenchment.

6. Hence, the appeal is allowed. The final order of awarding compensation is 2 lakhs only within three months to the petitioners, failing which, to pay a simple interest at the rate of 5% per annum is hereby modified. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 10 lakhs to the petitioners within three months from the date of this Order along with a simple interest of 6 % per annum from the date of initiation of the industrial dispute i.e. 21.08.2014. If the payment is not made within three months stipulated, then the amount of the compensation shall carry a penal interest of 9% from the aforesaid date.

4. In the matters of the petitioner, herein, according to the tenor of services which had been rendered by him, it is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as "Beat Sahayak", on daily rated, basis as back as on 16.08.1987, and his services were dispensed with on 30.06.1996. He sought a reference against the order of his removal from his services, which was referred for an adjudication, and ultimately the Labour Court has in the first phase of litigation rendered an award on 30.08.2011, whereby, the retrenchment of the petitioner was held to be illegal, and he was directed to be reinstated and directed to be treated into the continous services. However, no back wages were awarded to the petitioner.

5. Aggrieved against the said award dated 30.08.2011, the State preferred a Writ Petition being WPMS No.2149 of 2012, "State of Uttarakhand & another Vs. Mainpal", which was decided by the coordinate Bench of this Court by the judgment dated 14.03.2019, consequently the award dated 30.08.2011, was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Labour Court to decide a fresh. As a consequence of the revival of the proceedings, as an effect of the judgment dated 14.03.2019 rendered by this Court, the present award has been rendered on 30.06.2020, whereby, instead of passing of an order of reinstatement, though the respondents have been held to be an "industry" and the petitioner has been held to be a "workman", and the findings has been recorded, that the provisions of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, would be made applicable, the compensation has been determined to be made payable in the case of the petitioner to the tune of Rupees One Lakh, along with the cost of litigation expenses to the tune of Rupees Two Thousand, along with an interest payable on it @ 6%, from the date of filing of the reference.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits, that even if the denial of the reinstatement is substantiated to be accepted, in the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment, which has been referred thereto, but the quantification of the compensation itself belies the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, because the compensation has to be commensurated in each individual case, in accordance with the tenor of services which has been rendered by the workman in the capacity of a daily wager, till the termination of his services, which in the instant case, if it is determined from the initial date of appointment i.e. 16.08.1987, till the date of his removal i.e. 30.06.1996, it is more than nine years of service, which the petitioner has rendered as a daily wager.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits, that the determination of the compensation to the tune of Rupees One Lakh is too meager an amount, and not in accordance with the principles of the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment, which has laid down, that the Labour Court while awarding the compensation will have to bear in mind and should consider the period of service, which an employee has rendered, and considering the facts in the instant case that the

petitioner has rendered nine years of services as daily wager, I am of the view that the amount of compensation determined to be made payable to the tune of Rupees One Lakh, is too meager.

8. In that eventuality, and particularly, considering the principles laid down by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the judgment of Ram Prem (Supra), this Court is of the view that if proportionately an amount of compensation which has been determined to be paid is enhanced and made payable to the tune of Rupees Seven Lakh, that will meet the ends of justice, as well as the intention and purpose of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court of awarding of a compensation, instead of passing of an order of the reinstatement into the services of a workman while adjudicating on the reference made against an order of termination of services.

9. Accordingly, the award which is under challenge i.e. 30.06.2020, in the writ petition, is modified to the said extent that while denial of the reinstatement into the services of the workman is upheld, but the award of compensation which has been awarded to the extent of Rupees One Lakh, is enhanced to Rupees Seven Lakh. However, simultaneously considering the observations which had been laid down in paragraph No.6, of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, which is extracted above, the rate of interest payable on the aforesaid award, and enhanced compensation of Rupees Seven Lakh, would be made payable @ 5% from the date of the award itself, and the rest of the conditions contained in paragraph No.6, of the judgment would follow in the instant case too, if the amount of compensation thus enhanced is not paid within a period of three months from the date of the service of the certified copy of this judgment.

10. In view of the aforesaid observations, and for the reason, the award under challenge i.e. 30.06.2020, in the writ petition is modified to the extent of enhancement of the compensation to the tune of Rupees Seven Lakhs, and accordingly the interest rate too would stand settled as per the observations made in paragraph No.6, of the judgment of Ram Prem, as referred above.

11. Accordingly, subject to the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands allowed to that extent, so far it relates to the determination of the payment of the enhanced compensation and modification of the interest rate payable on the awarded compensation. Thus the impugned award dated 30.06.2020, stands modified to that extent.

12. However there shall be no orders as to cost.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 17.02.2022

NR/