Compensation for delayed claims must consider the Workman's voluntary resignation; backwages for five years were deemed unsustainable.

JUDGMENT

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

2. The present petition challenges the impugned order dated 19th January, 2019 in ID No. 7732/2016 titled Umender Kumar v. M/s Tiger Force Security Services, passed by the ld. PO, Labour Court-V, Dwarka Courts/Delhi (hereinafter "Labour Court"). Vide the impugned order, Respondent/Workman (hereinafter "Workman") was granted reinstatement with full backwages along with continuity of service and consequential benefits. The impugned award being an ex parte award has been challenged before this Court.

3. Vide order dated 20th November, 2019, this Court had granted interim stay on the impugned award subject to deposit of 50% of the awarded amount. Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner/Management (hereinafter "Management") has deposited a sum of Rs.4,89,420/- which has been kept in an FDR. The same is lying in the account of the Registrar General.

4. Today, an application has been moved by the Workman for litigation expenses and during the course of hearing, submissions were made in the main petition. The case of the Management is that the Workman was working as a security guard with the Management and he had left the employment to go back to his village out of his own volition. On the issue of non-appearance of the Management before the Labour Court, ld. Counsel submits that the counsel who was engaged by the Management met with an accident due to which he could not appear leading to the ex parte award being passed. Mr. Deepak Jain, ld. Counsel relies upon the reply filed by the Workman before the Labour Court wherein he clearly admitted that he was neither dismissed nor terminated by the Management but had gone back to his native village and that he did not return to re-join the service. Mr. Jain, ld. Counsel also submits that the Management is willing to take him back as a security guard.

5. Mr. Sumit Kumar, ld. Counsel, at this stage, was requested to contact the Workman and take instructions as to whether the Workman wishes to join back the Management. The Workman was also directed to join the proceedings virtually. The matter was passed over. However, after pass over, Mr. Sumit Kumar, ld. Counsel submits that he contacted the Workman but he unable to join the Court proceedings virtually as he is in his village in U.P. On the point of re-joining the services of the Management, he submits that the Workman has some apprehensions in re-joining the Petitioner/Management, however, he is agreeable to accepting a lump sum compensation in this matter.

6. Heard ld. Counsel for the parties. The Court has considered the matter. The statement made by the Workman before the Labour Court which is on record clearly has a categorical admission to the effect that the Workman had not been dismissed or terminated but he had gone to his native village and he did not return to service. The same reads as under: