JUDGMENT

G.S.Sandhawalia, J. - Consideration in the present Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellant-company is to the order of the learned Single Judge dated 04.10.2017 passed in CWP No. 23415 of 2012 whereby, the writ petition was allowed and compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the award was directed to be paid. Further, interest @ 8% per annum was also directed to be paid on the gratuity amount of Rs.52,463/- which had been paid by way of cheque before the learned Single Judge while relying upon the judgment in Y.K. Singla v. Punjab National Bank and others , (2013) 3 SCC 472 .

2. The challenge in the present appeal is not to the interest element awarded on the delayed payment of gratuity but only on Rs.2,00,000/- which had been awarded by way of compensation by the Management. Out of the said amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, 50% of the compensation was directed to be stayed while issuing notice of motion by the co-ordinate Bench on 30.10.2017. The learned Single Judge took into account the fact that the workman was employed on 14.09.1974 and he had lost sight in one of his eyes and received injuries on his neck and shoulder on account of an accident on 07.11.2000. Charge sheet had also been issued to him on the aspect that his work and performance was not upto the mark. Eventually, his services were dispensed with on 30.06.2005. It was also noticed by the learned Single Judge that the company now stands closed since 15.12.2016. Resultantly, a finding was given that a detailed enquiry had not been done and his services had been terminated in a summary manner and it was illegal and arbitrary and while noticing that the workman would have retired from service on 15.05.2020 and the company was closed, the damages were awarded.

3. Mr. Ashwani Talwar, counsel for the appellant has vehemently submitted that the order is not sustainable as admittedly, the accident was not in the course of employment and, therefore, the company could not be saddened with the said liability. The specific defence as such before the Labour Court was that the work capacity had been reduced to 50% and opportunities have been given to him to improve. The accident had not taken place in the course of employment. In view of Section 2 (oo)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act'), an exception was provided that termination of service of a workman on the ground of continued ill health was not retrenchment and, thus, stood excluded from the statutory protection. It was submitted that the last drawn monthly salary was Rs.3,372/- and a categorical finding as such had been recorded by the Labour Court regarding the statutory position as such vide its award dated 20.04.2012 and there was no justification to take the contrary view in a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India since there was no perversity in the award of the Labour Court.

4. A perusal of the demand notice dated 16.07.2005 (Annexure P- 2) issued under Section 2 A of the Act would go on to show that reference had been made to the termination order dated 30.06.2005 (Annexure P-1) that his services were being terminated on account of his physical incapacity. In the notice itself, it would be clear that the applicant was transferred on 02.06.2005 from the R & D Department to the Packing Department. It is the case of the workman that it was for the purpose of torture and termination but apparently it is on account of the fact that the company was giving him a chance as such on account of his handicap so that he could be adjusted. It having not worked out, led to the termination on account of the fact that due to injury suffered