Back
2009 Supreme(Del) 1145
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
On-Dot Couriers & Cargo Ltd., - Petitioner
Versus
Anand Singh Rawat, - Respondent
WP (C) No. 4197/2008
Decided on: 26.10.2009
Through:Mr. Kiran Suri, Advocate
Through:Mr. Sanjay Ghose, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of a workman to compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the factors to be considered in computing such compensation.
Headnote:
Compensation - Labour Dispute - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 2(s), Section 10, Section 11A, Section 25F, Section 33C, Section 33C(2) - The court discussed and referenced various legal provisions under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 including Section 2(s), Section 10, Section 11A, Section 25F, Section 33C, and Section 33C(2). The court analyzed the legal framework related to compensation in lieu of reinstatement, back wages, and the factors to be considered in computing compensation. The court also highlighted the principles established by previous judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Delhi High Court, emphasizing the need for judicious exercise of discretionary jurisdiction and the importance of considering relevant factors in determining compensation.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a workman, was terminated from service without notice, charge-sheet, or enquiry. The Labour Court awarded compensation to the respondent, which was challenged by the appellant. The appellant contended that the respondent was not entitled to compensation and raised issues regarding the respondent's employment status, gainful employment, and the capacity of the appellant's small setup to keep the position vacant.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the termination was illegal and ineffective, rendering the workman entitled to continued service with consequential benefits. The court emphasized the limitations on its jurisdiction and the finality of the Labour Court's factual findings. It also highlighted the legal position that reinstatement may be denied in certain circumstances, such as strained relationships or lack of trust. The court found that the respondent was entitled to compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages.
Issues: The issues included the legality of the termination, the entitlement of the workman to compensation, and the appellant's capacity to keep the position vacant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the illegality of the termination, the principles established by previous judgments, and the legal provisions under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The court emphasized the need for judicious exercise of discretionary jurisdiction and the importance of considering relevant factors in determining compensation.
Final Decision: The court confirmed the Labour Court's award of compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages, and directed the appellant to pay interest on the compensation amount.
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
1. By way of this petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks issue of writ quashing the order dated 01.03.2008 passed by the learned Labour Court so far it relates to grant of Rs. 2,16,000/- as compensation to the respondent no. 1.
2. The brief conspectus of the facts as set out in the petition are as under:
Mr. Anand Singh Rawat, the workman/respondent herein had been working with the management/appellant herein as a clerk since 8.6.1992 and his last drawn salary was @ Rs.4,200/- per month including emoluments. The main work of the workman was to receive the correspondence from Haryana and Punjab branches and to enter the receipts in the register. He also used to maintain the record. The service record of the workman is claimed to have remained clear and management never had any cause of complaint against the workman. Since the day of joining upto two years he had worked at Delhi and thereafter he had been sent to Ambala, where he worked for another period of six years and then from 30.7.1999 till 1.8.1999 he was called back to Delhi, where without assigning any reason, without issuing any notice, charge-sheet, without holding any enquiry, the management/appellant terminated the services of the respondent/workman. On 6.11.1999 the workman/respondent sent a demand notice to the management vide registered A.D. but instead of receiving the same the management did not reinstate the workman. Claim was filed before the Conciliation Officer but the management did not cooperate in the conciliation proceedings also. Labour Inspector was deputed on 3.2.2000 who advised the management to reinstate the workman. The management took back the workman on duty at 5.00 p.m. on that day but on 4.2.2000 when he again went to join duty, the management refused him work. On the same day on being apprised about these facts, the labour Conciliation Officer gave his report and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Appropriate Govt. The Labour Court answered the reference in favour of the respondent/workman and against the appellant/management. The Labour Court awarded a sum of Rs.2,16,000/- as compensation to the respondent/workman. Aggrieved with the said award the appellant/management has preferred this petition.
3. Ms. Kiran Suri counsel for the petitioner contended that the labour court itself observed in the said order dated 1/3/2008 that the compensation in lieu of reinstatement has been ranging from Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 25,000/- as per the decision of this court and the Hon’ble Apex Court but ignoring the same awarded Rs. 2,16,000/- as compensation on the ground that the judgments of this court and the Hon’ble Apex Court regarding compensation in lieu of reinstatement do not lay down any formula or guideline. In this regard, the counsel relied on various judgments of the Hon’ble Apex court in Rattan Singh vs. UOI - 1997 (11) SCC 396; State of Rajasthan Vs. Naresh Subey - 2005 (12) SCC 251; Workmen v. Bharat Fritz Werner (P) Ltd.- (1990) 3 SCC 565; Central P & D Institute vs. UOI - 2005 (9) SCC 171; Municipal Council vs. Surinder Kumar – (2006) 5 SCC 173; Municipal Council, Samrala vs. Sukhwinder Kaur - 2006 (6) SCC 516; Haryana Tourism Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Fakir Chand - 2003 (8) SCC 248; State of M. P. Vs. Arjunlal Rajak - 2006 (2) SCC 711 and Haryana State Electronics Development Corpn. Ltd. vs. Mamni - 2006 (9) SCC 434. The counsel also contended that the labour court failed to appreciate that the respondent was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the ID Act. The counsel also submitted that the letters were sent to the respondent workman to join back his services at the address available with the petitioner even before the notice was received from the Conciliation Officer. The counsel also pointed out that the workman joined on 3/2/2000 at 1700 hrs but later on did not turn up. The counsel also urged that the respondent workman was gainfully employed and
