Compensation for termination must reflect the length of service and adhere to statutory provisions, with courts having the authority to enhance inadequate awards.

Order :

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.

1. By way of filing this writ petition, the impugned award dated 24.09.2019 passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur has been assailed by the petitioners.

2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that a common consolidated statement of claim was submitted by all the three petitioners namely Rajveer, Banay Singh and Rameshwar against their impugned termination order dated 01.01.1989 before the Labour Court with the averments that they were engaged as Beildar on 01.01.1983 and they continued on the said post till 31.12.1988 and their services were terminated on 01.01.1989 without issuing any notice and without making any payment of compensation by the respondent- Department in violation of the provisions contained under Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act of 1947’). Counsel submits that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 namely Rajveer and Banya Singh have produced their evidence but the petitioner No. 3- Rameshwar could not produce his evidence, hence his evidence was closed. Counsel submits that all the petitioners have made a specific averments in the statement of claim petition that without following the due process of law as contained under Section 25-F of the Act of 1947, their services were terminated. Counsel submits that looking to the length of service of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, a petty amount of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- each was awarded to them while not even a single penny has been awarded to the petitioner No. 3. Counsel submits that once this fact was established on record that all three petitioners have worked with the respondent for more than 240 days and there was violation of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947, then adequate amount of compensation could have been granted to the petitioners looking to their length of service, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

3. Per contra, counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer and submits that the petitioners have failed to establish this fact on record that they worked continuously for more than 240 days.

Counsel submits that the petitioner Nos. 3 has failed to produce his evidence, hence the Labour Court has not committed any error in closing his evidence and passing the impugned award against him. Counsel submits that the award of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- is just and proper to the extent of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and the same does not require any interference of this Court and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

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

5. This Court is deciding the petition in two parts, one for the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and second part for the petitioner No. 3. So far the case of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 is concerned, they produced the evidence on record before the Labour Court that they were engaged on the post of Beildar on 01.01.1983 and they worked till 31.12.1988 and their services were terminated vide order dated 01.01.1989. Both petitioners have produced their evidence with regard to the working in the intervening period and they have established this fact on record that they worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and this fact has been appreciated by the Tribunal by recording a finding of fact but a petty amount of Rs. 50,000/- each has been paid to them, which is quite inadequate and improper, looking to the total length of service of the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2.

6. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Deputy Conservator of Forests vs. Sharfuddin passed in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.700/2018 decided on 20.08.2019 has held para Nos.3 and 4 as under:

“3.We have heard Counsel for the parties. It is contended by the State that the approach of the Courts these days has been to not direct reinstatement but instead grant lump sum compensation; the decision in The Director, Tiger Project, Sariska, District Alwar Vs. Data Ram & Ors.- D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.4