JUDGMENT :

DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J.

PREFACE

1. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner workman challenging the impugned Award dated 25.07.2015 passed by the Ld. POLC– IX, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in I.D. No.771/2014 (Old ID No. 83/07). In the impugned Award the learned Labour Court, while deciding in favour of the petitioner workman and against the management, has awarded compensation to the workman to the extent of 50% of the minimum wages from the date of receiving of the reference in the Court till the date of award, in lieu of reinstatement, back wages and all other consequential benefits.

The relief as granted by the learned Labour Court vide the impugned Award reads as under:

“33. Now coming to the relief part. The workman has claimed reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages along with all consequential benefits. This court is of opinion that since the present dispute is pending between the workman and the management since 09.02.07 i.e. for about 8&1/2 years, reinstatement of workman in service would not be in the interest of both the parties and as such instead of ordering the reinstatement, this court deems it proper to award compensation in favour of the workman.

34. Now coming to quantum of compensation. The services of the workman have been terminated by the management on 19.05.03 and the workman has stated that he is unemployed since the date of his termination and he has claimed reinstatement with full back wages including continuity of service and all other consequential benefits. Although the MW-1 during his cross examination deposed that they have no material or document to show that the workman concerned is gainfully employed after 19.05.03 yet this court cannot presume that an able bodied person would remain, unemployed for such a long period. Hence, in view of all these facts and circumstances, it would be in the interest of justice if the workman is ordered to be compensated in lieu of his reinstatement, back wages and all other consequential benefits. Accordingly, the management is directed to pay the compensation to the workman to the extent of 50% of the minimum wages whichever is higher from the time to time w.e.f. 09.02.07 i.e. the date of receiving of reference in the court to the date of award, in lieu of his reinstatement, back wages and all other consequential benefits. The management is directed to release this payment to the workman within a period of one month from the date of award, failing which this amount shall carry a simple interest @ 8% per annum from the date of award till realization.”

2. It is pertinent to note that the impugned Award dated 25.07.2015 has been challenged by the Petitioner workman only to the limited extent of relief granted, as the petitioner workman is aggrieved of being denied reinstatement, back wages and all other consequential benefits. The said Award remains unchallenged by the respondent Corporation. Thus, the only question/issue posed before this Court is with respect to the relief granted and whether the relief granted by the learned Labour Court was in accordance with the law?

BRIEF FACTS

3. Briefly stated the facts as stated in the petition are that the petitioner workman joined the services of the respondent as a Beldar w.e.f. 11.02.2002 and was engaged as a daily wager/ muster rolls employee receiving fixed wages, revised from time to time as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Petitioner workman was arrested on 19.05.2003 in a false murder case and was released on bail after about a year on 22.05.2004. It has been alleged that after his release on bail, he approached the respondent Corporation seeking to resume his duties, however the management citing the pending murder trial in FIR No. 538/2003,informed the workman that his services can be only resumed after the final outcome in the said trial. Vide judgment dated 05.07.2004, the petitioner workman was acquitted of the said charges. It has been alleged that pursuant to his acquit