Compensation for unlawful termination must reflect the length of service, with the court enhancing the awarded amount to Rs.4,00,000 based on the workman's tenure.

Order :

1. Both these petitions have been preferred against the impugned award dated 27.03.2019 passed by the Labour Court-I, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Labour Court’) while deciding LCR No.44/2011, by which statement of claim submitted by the workman has been partly allowed and compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- has been awarded to the workman.

2. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid award, both employer as well as the workman have approached this Court by way of filing these petitions.

3. The workman raised an industrial dispute by way of filing a claim petition before the Labour Court stating therein that he was engaged as daily wager in June, 1981, by the petitioner-employer and he worked on the said post till 15.12.1988, and his services were terminated without issuing any notice and without making any payment of compensation. It was the case of the workman before the Labour Court that he worked with the employer for a period of more than 240 days in a calendar year and that there has been violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act of 1947’). The aforesaid claim petition filed by the workman was opposed the petitioner and after hearing arguments of both sides, the impugned award was passed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-employer submits that no finding was recorded by the Labour Court while passing the order impugned about the fact that the workman had worked with the petitioner-employer for more than seven years and the only finding recorded was that he had worked with the petitioner for more than 240 days in the preceding calendar year. Counsel submits that unless and until such finding is recorded that the workman has worked with the petitioner for a period of seven years, the amount of compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- is exorbitant. The workman was entitled to get a maximum amount of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for one year of the preceding calendar year. Counsel further submits that the dispute was raised by the workman after a lapse of more than 22 years, but this fact has been overlooked by the Labour Court while passing the impugned award, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the workman opposes the arguments made by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that a specific pleading was made with regard to the fact that he worked with the petitioner w.e.f. June, 1981 till 15.12.1988, and this fact was not disputed by the petitioner, hence, there was no reason for recording such finding by the Labour Court at the time of passing of the impugned award. Counsel submits that the workman is a specially abled person suffering from more than 40% permanent disability as he is deaf and dumb. Counsel submits that the petitioner-employer assured the workman that they will reinstate him in service, that is why, a delay has occurred in filing the claim petition before the Labour Court. Counsel further submits that looking to the length of service of the petitioner i.e. more than seven years, the amount of compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- is quite inadequate, which needs suitable enhancement by this Court. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of BSNL vs. Bhurumal, reported in (2014) 7 SCC 177 and Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank & Anr. vs. Madanlal Tandon reported in 2015 DNJ (SC) 596

6. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record.

7. Perusal of the record indicates that the workman has raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court by way of filing a statement of claim, pleading therein that he was engaged as a daily wager by the petitioner in the month of June, 1981 and he continued on the said post till 15.12.1988. It was pleaded before the Labour Court that his services were terminated without following the due process of law as contained under Section 25F of the Act of 1947. Thi