CM 15169/2014 in LPA 598/2014

For the reasons stated in the application the delay of 184 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

2. Application is disposed of.

LPA 87/2014+LPA No. 598/2014

3. Sivan Kutty N.K. (in short the workman) was appointed as a stenographer by the Indo Alusys Industries Ltd. (in short the management) on May 19, 1995 in the pay grade of Rs. 1600-175-3700/- with basic salary of Rs. 2825/- which salary was revised later. From August 09, 1996 to September 23, 1996 the workman remained on medical leave and when he sought reimbursement of medical bills and the salary of the medical leave period he was informed that he was not covered under the ESIC scheme. He claims that since he would go for dressing, the management became annoyed and asked him to resign which he refused.

4. His services were terminated on October 18, 1996, as per the termination letter Ex.MW-1/3 which reads as under:

"In view of your gross misbehaviour with your Departmental Head & threatening him for the dire consequences for reasons best known to you, you are hereby terminated from you services with immediate effect."

5. On a challenge to the termination being illegal a reference was made to the labour Court on the following terms:

"Whether services of Shri Sivan Kutty N.K. have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management, if so, what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"

6. Vide award dated November 07, 2009, the learned labour Court held that the termination of the workman was illegal and misbehaviour was certainly not relatable to the suitability of the post. The order of removal being punitive in nature and no inquiry having been held the termination was illegal. The labour Court however stated that it would not be appropriate to reinstate the workman and awarded full back wages in lieu of reinstatement.

7. Against the award dated November 07, 2009, the management filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.3049/2010 wherein by the impugned order dated December 13, 2013 the learned Single Judge while upholding the termination to be illegal held that since the workman had hardly worked for one year and his services were terminated about 14 years ago a lump sum compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs would meet the ends of justice. It was further noted that the workman had already received a sum of Rs. 50,000/- during the pendency of the writ petition and from the amount deposited in this Court a further sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- be released and the balance amount if any with interest be released to the management.

8. Challenging the order dated December 13, 2013 two appeals have been filed before this Court one each by the management and the workman. The grievance of the management is to the grant of lump sum compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs and the termination being held illegal whereas the grievance of the workman is to the compensation of full back wages being reduced to Rs. 2 lakhs in lump sum.

9. Learned counsel for the management contends that since the workman remained on probation even after the expiry of probation period having not been confirmed due to the misbehaviour with the seniors, his services could be terminated without conducting an inquiry and the order of termination cannot be held to be punitive in nature. Further having held that reinstatement was not an automatic relief, the award of compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs was very high in view of the fact that workman was on probation and had worked barely for a period of one year and had received full payment till he worked.

10. On the other hand learned counsel for the workman urged that from the date of termination the workman has been unemployed that the awarded full back wages in lieu of reinstatement amounted to Rs. 6,69,476/- which have been reduced to Rs. 2 lakhs arbitrarily and without any reasoning

11. Indubitably the workman was appointed on May 19, 1995 and on October 18, 1996 when he was terminated, his services had not been confirmed. Thu