Compensation awards must reflect the severity of termination cases, considering the length of service and associated injuries to ensure justice.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

2. This matter has been taken up today as 20th August, 2021 was declared a holiday on account of "Muharram".

CM APPL. 12129/2021 (for delay)

3. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing. For the reasons stated in the application, delay is condoned. Application is disposed of.

CM APPL. 12128/2021 (for recall of the order dated 25th July, 2019) & 12130/2021 (for stay) in W.P.(C) 7721/2007

4. CM APPL. 12128/2021 has been filed by the Respondent/Management seeking recall of the ex-parte order dated 25th July, 2019 whereby the Award of the Ld. Labour Court dated 04th July 2007 was upheld by the Ld. Single Judge and the compensation awarded to the Petitioner was increased from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.4,00,000/-.

5. The brief background of the matter is that the Petitioner was engaged by the Respondent/Management in 1987 and his services were terminated in 1998. He accordingly rendered services for a period of 11 years. The said termination was challenged by the Workman before the Ld. Labour Court and vide the impugned award dated 4th July, 2007, the Labour Court instead of granting reinstatement, granted a lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/-. The operative portion of the said award reads as under:

"Issue No.2:

The case of the workman is that his services were terminated illegally by the management. On the other hand, the case of the management is that the workman has abandoned his job. In issue No. 1 above it has been held that the workman has not abandoned his job.

The onus to prove this issue is upon the workman. To prove this issue, the workman has filed his affidavit Ex. WW 1/A wherein he has stated that his services were illegally and unlawfully terminated by the management on 30.4.98. Nothing could come out in the cross examination of the workman which could shake his credibility. So, under these circumstances. I am of the view that the workman has proved that his services were illegally terminated by the management on 30.4.98.

The issue is decided accordingly, in favour of the workman and against the management"

xxx xxx xxx

In view of the judgment referred above and the facts and circumstances of the present case, in my opinion, the compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousands only) if granted to the workman would met the ends of the justice. Accordingly, the workman is granted compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousands only)."

6. The Award dated 04th July 2007 was not challenged by the Respondent/Management. However, the Workman challenged said award in the present petition. Notice was served in the writ petition initially on 24th October, 2007. However, on 14th July, 2008, no one had appeared on behalf of the Petitioner. The Petition was dismissed in default for non-prosecution.

7. After a substantial delay of almost 12 years, an application for restoration of the writ petition was filed by the Petitioner herein on 19th November 2018, in which notice was issued by the ld. Single Judge. The said application for restoration was heard on 15th July, 2019 and 25th July, 2019. On 15th July, 2019, the restoration was allowed and the matter was heard. On the said date, one Mr. Pradhuman Gautam, Advocate appeared on behalf of the Respondent-Management. Finally, on 25th July, 2019, in the absence of the Counsel for the Respondent, this Court upheld the Award dated 4th July 2007 passed by the Ld. Labour Court and also increased the compensation from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.4 lakhs. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under:

"xxx xxx xxx

6. This Court is satisfied that the c