The court has jurisdiction to modify an award under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and may award compensation in lieu of reinstatement if it finds that reinstatement is not justifiable.

P. S. MISHRA, C. J.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellants (workmen) and the learned counsel for the respondents (management ).

( 2 ) IT is not in dispute that the (respondents) appellants were employed in the coke manufacturing industry of the respondent-management. They were subjected to a domestic enquiry and removed from service on the alleged proof of various allegations levelled against them. The Labour Court ordered reinstatement without back-wages. The management moved this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court at the time of admission of the writ petition granted stay on condition of complying with the requirements of section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The appeal against the said order under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent was dismissed. There is some proceeding taken in the Court of the District Munsif, Hyderabad West and south, Ranga Reddy in O. S. No. 180 of 1986 in which an order of interim injunction is granted on 9-9-1988 in the following terms:"the Court doth order that interim injunction be awareded restraining the respondents, their agents, servants, nominees etc. , or any person claiming through them, from holding any meetings, demonstrations and shouting slongans in any manner whatsoever, in or around the factory premises, including its corridor/passage or from interfering or obstructing in any manner whatsoever with the running of the said Industry, Sri Narsing industries, 5-121, Durga Hussain Shah Wali, Lingampally Revenue mandal, Ranga Reddy District and with the rights of the petitioner, its staff, workers, officers, visitors, callers, clients etc. , from using the factory premises of the petitioner firm until further orders". The award, however, has been contested and all that has been urged and decided by the learned single Judge is stated in these words:"i heard both the Counsel. While it is true that the terms of injunction did not restrain the respondents 1 to 7, 9, and 11 and 12 from attending to their duties, some margin has to be given to them in the manner they understand. Generally, if an injunction order is shown, they construe it is a restrain without going into the details. May be this is one of such cases. While the abstaining from work by the respondents 1 to 12 cannot be approved, but in a labour movement, this kind of Dharnas or strikes to project the grievances of the labour are not unusual. But Sri g. Ramachandra Rao, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents 1 to 12 are not in service since 1986 and 9 years lapsed since then, that other workers have been employed in the place of the respondents 1 to 12 and that if respondents 1 to 12 are employed, the other workmen have got to be ousted which will again give rise to further litigation and also hardship. Once there was a strain between respondents 1 to 12 and the petitioner, there will not be harmony even if respondents 1 to 12 are reinstated and it is reasonable for the petitioner to apprehend the situation as occurred in the year 1986. Taking these into overall consideration, I modify the award passed by the Labour Court which is subject-matter of this writ petition, directing the petitioner to pay a lumpsum amount of Rs. 8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand only) to each of the respondents 1 to 12 towards full and final settlement of all the claims of R-1 to 12 inluding the gratuity. The petitioner shall pay half of the said amount within2 months from the date of receipt of this order and the balance half of the amount within 2 months thereof. Till such time, the regular payment under Section 17-B of the i. D. Act shall be continued. The amounts paid complying with the provisions of Section 17-B of I. D. Act, 1947 shall not be liable to be refunded. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of".

( 3 ) NOTHING has been shown to us to take the view, however, mat there is any mistake in the award. Modification, as ordered by the learned single Judge, however,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document