Delay in filing a claim does not prevent an employee from seeking compensation for termination; the court prioritized justice and service duration over procedural delays.

ORDER :

1.Leave granted.

2. The appellant was able to establish the case before the Labour Court that after working for a long period, his services came to be terminated. The Labour Court ordered reinstatement but without back wages. However, continuity of service was ordered. The learned Single Judge of the High Court, however, interfered with the Award. The interference was premised on a long delay which was perceived on the part of the appellant in approaching the Labour Court. The view taken by the learned Single Judge has been affirmed by the Division Bench by the impugned order.

3. We have heard Shri Raghavendra S. Srivatsa, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that this is a case where the mere fact that the appellant approached the Labour Court late should not stand in the way of this Court granting compensation. In this regard, we may notice that notice was issued limited to the question as to whether in lieu of reinstatement, the appellant can be awarded compensation.

5. Dilating on his right to claim compensation, learned counsel for the appellant would bring to our notice a few orders passed by this Court. In the said orders, it is the case of the appellant that this Court had taken the view that delay will not be fatal in the matter of considering the claim of compensation at least.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State would oppose the grant of any relief and supports the view that the learned Single Judge as also the Division Bench have taken.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view, taking into consideration, in particular, the finding of the Labour Court that the appellant was originally engaged in year 1979 and is found to have worked till 1999 when his services were terminated, and also taking into consideration the fact that there was a delay of nearly 9 years, that interest of justice would be met if we modify the impugned order after allowing the appeal partly and order payment of a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand only).

8. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned order will stand modified. We direct the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.4.5 lakhs to the appellant within a period of six weeks from today.

9. In case, the amount of Rs.4.5 lakhs as ordered is not paid within the period as indicated, the amount will carry interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum.