JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-

1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the award of the labour court dated 28.11.2014, which was published on 27.02.2015 to the extent whereby the labour court denied the reinstatement to the petitioner and in place of reinstatement granted Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only (Rs.1,50,000/-) and in league with the order dated 09.10.2014 along with its effect and operation also and further to allow the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement with all consequential benefits after calling the entire records from the respondents.

2. Issue a writ, order or direction appropriate in nature including mandamus to treat the petitioner in service had it been the impugned termination order along with all consequential benefits and salary to the petitioner.

3. Issue a writ, order or direction appropriate in nature including writ of declaration to award damages/compensation in tune of One Crore Rupees from the respondent company for its admitted act of unfair labour practice and creating social pollution resulted to unemployment in the society and harassment of the petitioner due to which he has succumbed to financial losses and mental agony and lowering down of his social image.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a skilled labour/operator in line department on 01.06.1996 by the respondent-Company and his services were regularized on the said post on 01.09.1996.The services of the petitioner was suspended on 03.03.1999 till the completion of the enquiry. Vide letter dated 09.03.1999, a charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner leveling all false and fabricated allegations/ charges. Petitioner vide letter dated 14.06.1999 replied to the charge-sheet dated 09.03.1999 as the same was provided to him very lately by the respondents. The respondent-employer took the proceedings before the learned Labour Court, who passed award against the employer on 17.11.2009 ex-parte, which was published on 09.04.2010 and directed for reinstatement. The said order was challenged by the employer in High Court and the Hon’ble High Court set aside the said order and directed the matter to be decided on merit. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court vide order dated 09.10.2014 decided the preliminary issue regarding the fairness of enquiry proceedings against the workman and held that no principle of natural justice is violated and also held that the enquiry officer has conducted the enquiry in fair manner and also held that the finding of enquiry officer calls for no interference and decided the issue against the workmen. Learned Labour Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 26.11.2014 however quashed the termination order dated 22.03.2000 but has not reinstated his services and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- only, to him. Thus feeling aggrieved, petitioner is before this Court.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner came before the learned Labour Court well within time for his reinstatement and he made all efforts, without any delay, to get his services back, hence he must be protected by reinstating his services in the respondent-Company. She further submits that the impugned order dated 28.11.2014 passed by learned Labour Court is based on mere apprehension and the observation of learned Labour Court that “it would not be proper neither for petitioner nor for employer to reinstate the petitioner in his services”, is not justified and liable to be set aside on the ground that learned Labour Court has itself held the respondents guilty of malice against the petitioner. Thus, the only part of apprehension of the learned Labour Court is liable to be set aside and the service of the petitioner is liable to be reinstated.

4. She also contends that the petitioner worked for several years as a skilled labour in the respond