Compensation in wrongful termination cases is subject to the proof of gainful employment by the worker post-termination; reinstatement can be denied based on loss of confidence.

JUDGMENT :

M. S. SONAK, J.

1. None for the Petitioner. Mr. Singbal appears for the Respondent.

2. Since this is an old matter, there is no point in adjourning it any further.

3. The Petitioner-workman challenges the Labour Court’s Award dated 16.05.2012 by which the Labour Court, after holding that the Petitioner’s termination was illegal and unjustified, denied the Petitioner reinstatement, but awarded him compensation of only Rs.2,00,000/-.

4. Mr. Singbal, learned Counsel for the Respondent-employer, submitted that the employer had also challenged this very Award by instituting Writ Petition No.719/2012. He submitted that this petition was dismissed by order dated 07.01.2013 after holding that the Award dated 16.05.2012 was legal and proper. He now submits that this order of 07.01.2013 in Writ Petition No.719/2012 will operate as res judicata, and based thereon, even this petition must be dismissed.

5. The employer’s Writ Petition No.719/2012 had challenged the Labour Court’s Award dated 16.05.2012 on the ground that the Labour Court’s finding that the workman’s termination was not legal and proper was vitiated by perversity and should be set aside. Without prejudice, the employer had contended that even the Award of Rs.2,00,000/- by way of compensation was excessive and the same should not have been awarded.

6. Learned Single Judge of this Court (Coram: F. M. Reis, J.) by order dated 11.01.2013, dismissed the employer’s petition. The relevant discussion is at paragraphs 4, 5 and 6, and the same is transcribed below for the convenience of reference:

“4. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and I have also gone through the records as well as the impugned Judgment. It is well settled that in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence to come to any contrary conclusion. On perusal of the impugned Judgment, the Tribunal on the basis of the material on record and appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties, has come to the conclusion that the fact that the disputed document has been forged and handed over to the Bank, has not been established. It is not in dispute that the particulars which have been disclosed in the said certificate are in accordance with the actual salary which the Respondent was drawing from the Petitioners. Apart from that, the Respondent was a sweeper working in the establishment of the Petitioners. It is not the case of the Petitioners that the whole exercise on the part of the Respondent was to get some unlawful gain on the basis of such document. On the contrary, the records reveal that the Respondent had stood as a guarantor for the borrower and it is well know that in such circumstances, no monetary benefits can accrue to the Respondent. However, only because the borrower defaulted in the payment to the Bank, the amount was sought to be recovered from the Respondent and thereafter the amount was repaid by the Respondent. These facts which curl out from the records of the proceedings further suggests that the Respondent had not taken any personal gain on the basis of such certificate. The Tribunal has noted that the concerned official who was working with the Bank at the relevant time, has not been examined. Apart from that, the borrower also has not been examined. In such circumstances, the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal on the basis of the material on record, cannot be said to be perverse.

5.