The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of a workman to compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages, based on the inability to perform normal work after an accident, and the applicability of the Industrial Disputes Act and the Disabilities Act to a private employer.

C.V. Karthikeyan, J.

(Prayer: These Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 28.09.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.18806 of 2008 on the file of this Court.)

1. W.A.No.33 of 2013 had been filed by the workman J.Udayan and W.A.No.2440 of 2013 had been filed by the Management of Caterpillar India Private Limited. Both the writ appeals has been filed assailing the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.18806 of 2008 dated 28.09.2012.

2. W.P.No.18806 of 2008 had been filed by the Management, Caterpillar India Private Limited, challenging the award of the II Additional Labour Court, Chennai in I.D.No.538 of 2005 dated 23.01.2008 whereby, the Labour Court had directed the Management to reinstate the workman J.Udayan with service continuity and back wages.

3. The workman claimed to be an employee in the Management from 01.01.2004 till 03.03.2005, working without any break. He was tasked by the Management to do loading and unloading, cleaning the iron sheets with rust cleaning Sander machine, plate cleaning etc., and also to work in container lorries to put hook attached with the Fork Lift Machine/Vehicle and all other related works.

4. It is the claim of the workman that he had originally joined Hindustan Earth Moving Equipment on 25.11.1991 and completed apprenticeship. After training he worked as a casual labourer in the said company till the present Management took over the said company. On 17.07.2004, when he was performing the work allotted to him, at about 3.30 p.m., a Fork Lift ran over his left leg and he suffered grievous injury near the knee and ankle joint. He rejoined duty on 17.01.2005. He was then assigned work in the Library section. Thereafter, he was refused employment from 04.02.2005.

5. The workman therefore raised an Industrial Dispute. Since the conciliation failed, he filed I.D.No.538 of 2005, before the II Additional Labour Court Chennai. Before the Labour Court, both the workman and the Management adduced oral and documentary evidence and on analysis of the same, the Labour Court held that he had worked for more than one year and held that denial of employment was not valid. It was also observed that the Management should have granted alternate employment. Consequently, it directed reinstatement with service continuity and back wages. This award was challenged by the Management by filing W.P.No.18806 of 2008. The learned Single Judge by order dated 28.09.2012 had granted a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation as full and final settlement of all his claims excluding the payments made as per obligation cast on the Management under Section 17-B of the I.D. Act.

6. The reasoning of the learned Single Judge for reaching the said conclusion are extracted below for ready reference:

“14. In the light of the rival contentions, it has to be seen whether the impugned Award is liable to be interfered with.

15. This Court is not inclined to disturb the finding of fact viz., that the workman had completed 240 days of service in a period of 12 calendar months and therefore his eligible to be dealt with under Chapter V-A of the I.D. Act. Admittedly, he was not given any notice or notice pay. In normal course, he is entitled for the relief of reinstatement with all consequential back wages. But however subsequent to the accident suffered by him, he was not able to do the normal work in the assembly line and he was given light work in the library. Since the Supreme Court has held in Dalco Engineering Private Ltd., V. Satish Prabhakar Padhye and others reported in 2010-III-LLJ-64(SC), that the provisions of Disabilities Act will not apply to a private employer, this Court cannot direct the Management to provide any alternate employment to the workman for his entire service. On the background of this fact and as directed by the Supreme Court in the judgment in Jagbir Singh V. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and another reported in 2009-IV-LLJ-336(SC),