Where a workman has been subjected to prolonged litigation for several decades without fault, the court may enhance lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement to serve the interests of justice and avoid further litigation.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)

1. The workman is in appeal. The workman had raised a dispute before the Labour Court contending that he was orally terminated in April, 1997.

2. The Labour Court granted an award on 10.04.2018 directing reinstatement without backwages.

3. Being aggrieved, the State preferred a writ petition in the year 2024, i.e. after a period of six years.

4. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned order, and with the following reasons, has allowed the writ petition in part:-

“11. It appears from the record that the respondent workman has challenged the termination order before the Labour Court after period of approximately 12 years and the State Government has also challenged the impugned order before this Court after more than 6 years. Therefore, there was delay on both the end in preferring the proceedings either before the Labour Court or before this Court. Further, it is an admitted fact that the workman has worked for three years, and out of three years, he has completed 240 days in two years. Therefore, in that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the workman is entitled to get Rs.2,00,000/- as lumpsum compensation in lieu of reinstatement and all other consequential benefits.

12. In view of the above, present petition is partly allowed. The impugned award passed by the Labour Court is hereby quashed and set aside and the award is modified accordingly. An amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as lump sum compensation shall be paid to the workman in lieu of reinstatement and all other consequential benefits by the employer after proper verification of the identity and bank details through RTGS within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of this order. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs.”

5. A could be seen from the above, the learned Single Judge has taken a view that the workman had challenged the order of termination after a period of 12 years. The learned Single Judge has also observed that the State took six years to challenge the award of the Labour Court directing reinstatement.

6. Learned counsel for the workman points out that the even as per the award, the workman had raised a dispute in the year 1998 itself. This would, therefore, indicate that the observation by the learned Single Judge that the reference that the dispute was raised only after 12 years is incorrect. He also places on record, the complaint that had been lodged under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which indicates that the workman had raised a dispute in the year 1998 itself.

7. In light of these facts, the observation of the learned Single Judge that the workman had raised a dispute 12 years after the award would be incorrect.

8. Though this would require the matter to be remitted to the learned Single Judge for re-consideration, in our view, having regard to the fact that the termination alleged was more than 30 years ago, subjecting the appellant to further litigation would not be fair and proper.

9. In our view, interest of justice would be sub-served if the lumsum compensation awarded by the learned Single Judge is enhanced from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/-. This enhancement has become necessary because the workman, immediately after his termination in the year 1997, raised a dispute in 1998. Reference proceedings were pending for nearly 20 years till 2018. Even after the reference was decided in 2018, the State took six years to file a writ petition. In other words, the workman has been litigating for more than 34 years and he cannot be asked to subject himself