The court emphasized the importance of considering the length of service and the delay in filing the reference in determining the adequacy of compensation in cases of industrial disputes.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Learned AGP, Mr. Shah, waives service of rule for the Respondents.

2. Since, the issue involved in this petition runs in a very narrow compass, with the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties, the same is taken-up for final hearing and disposal at the admission stage.

3. This is a petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, whereby, the petitioner has challenged the award, Dated: 19.08.2017, passed in Reference (LCH) No. 44 of 2012 by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Himmatnagar, awarding lump-sum compensation of Rs.65,001/- to the petitioner in lieu of reinstatement.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed by the respondents as a dailywager during the period from 1993 to 2001 and he was getting Rs.1500/- per month towards salary.

4.1 It is the case of the petitioner that, though, he had worked for more than 240 days in each year, the respondents terminated his services by an oral order in the year 2001 without following the relevant provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in brief, ‘the ID Act’).

4.2 Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner raised the industrial dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court, Himmatnagar, and was registered as Reference (LCH) No. 44 of 2012.

4.3 Before the Labour Court, the petitioner submitted his Statement of Claims vide Exhibit-4, whereas, the respondents filed their written statement vide Exhibit-11. Thereafter, both the sides led oral as well as the documentary evidences.

4.4 After considering the oral as well as the documentary evidences produced before it, the Labour Court recorded a specific finding that the respondents committed the breach of the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the ID Act, while terminating the services of the petitioner. However, considering the fact that the services of the petitioner were terminated in the year 2001, whereas, the Reference was filed in the year 2012, i.e. nearly after a delay of about 11 years, the Labour Court granted the lump-sum compensation of Rs.65001/- in lieu of reinstatement. The Labour Court also awarded Rs.1501/- towards costs to the petitioner.

4.5 Being aggrieved with the aforesaid award, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

5. Learned Advocate, Mr. Mishra, appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have not challenged the award of the Labour Court and thereby, they have accepted the findings recorded by the Labour Court to the effect that there is violation of mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the ID Act.

5.1 It was submitted that the petitioner worked with the respondents for about eight years and merely because the dispute is raised after the delay of 11 years, it cannot be said that the dispute was not alive.

5.2 It was, further, submitted that, since, the respondents have not challenged the order of the Labour Court by filing a separate petition, the findings recorded by the Labour Court have attained finality.

5.3 It was, therefore, submitted that the Labour Court has committed a grave error by awarding Rs.65001/-, merely on the ground that the dispute was raised after the period of 11 years.

5.4 In support of his submissions, learned Advocate, Mr. Mishra, placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of ‘State Of Uttarakhand Vs. Raj Kumar’, reported in AIR 2019 SC 310, wherein, the petitioner, who was working as a dailywager with the respondent-authorities, had raised an industrial dispute after a period of almost 25 years and Labour Court had granted only Rs.30,000/- in lieu of reinstatement. Thereafter, the same was challenged before the High Court and then before the Apex Court. In the matter before the Apex Court, considering the fact that the petitioner had worked for only one year and had raised the dispute after the period of 25 years, the Apex Court awarded lump-sum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement.

5.5 Learned Advocate, Mr. Mishra, therefore pra