Mirc Electronics Limited vs Shashank Gupta

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Del) 1543

V. KAMESWAR RAO
Mirc Electronics Limited – Appellant
Versus
Shashank Gupta – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Birendra Mishra, Advocate with Ms. Poonam Atey and Md. Ziyaul Rahman, Advocates, for the Petitioner in W.P.(C) 279 of 2014, CM APPL. 43718 of 2021 & for the Respondent in W.P.(C) 2410/2015, CM APPL. 43489/2021.
Mr. Atul Nagarajan, Mr. Rajat & Ms. K. Pallavi, Advocates with Respondent-1 in Person, for the Respondent in W.P.(C) 279 of 2014, CM APPL. 43718 of 2021 & for the Petitioner in W.P.(C) 2410/2015, CM APPL. 43489/2021.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. By this common order, I shall decide the titled writ petitions, as they both arise from the same factual matrix assailing the order/award dated August 03, 2013 (`impugned order', hereinafter) passed by the Labour Court, Karkardooma, Delhi in LC No. 84/2010.

2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the petitioner company in W.P.(C) 279/2014, who is the respondent in W.P.(C) 2410/2015 shall be referred to as `the company' hereinafter. Similarly, the respondent in W.P.(C) 279/2014, who is the petitioner in W.P.(C) 2410/2015 shall be referred to as the `employee' hereinafter. The company in its petition has challenged the impugned order whereby the Labour Court has awarded a sum of Rs.5 lakh to the employee as lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. The employee in his petition has prayed for, inter alia, reinstatement with continuity of service, full back wages and all consequential benefits along with interest on withheld payments.

3. It is an admitted fact that the employee was initially appointed as a Computer Operator with effect from April 20, 1992 to perform typing and clerical services in corporate taxation department of O