The court upheld the dismissal of a temporary employee while increasing compensation for delayed service redressal.

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to Award dated 20.10.2010 passed by the 2^nd respondent in I.D.No.513 of 1999, quash the same and direct the 1^st respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with effect from 15.02.1997, with continuity of service and back wages.

2. The case of the petitioner is that, he was working in the 1^st respondent plantation from 01.10.1987 initially on a temporary basis. During the relevant time, he was working as a Junior Subordinate Field Officer (JSFO) in the 1^st respondent plantation. Whileso, he was placed under suspension by an order dated 03.06.1996 and a show cause notice dated 04.06.1996 was issued alleging that on 01.06.1996, he had threatened Section Officer, who is also the Acting Superintendent of the estate with dire consequences if the deduction made from my salary is not refunded. He had submitted the explanation dated 07.06.1996 denying the charges. Without conducting proper enquiry, he was dismissed from service on 15.02.1997. As against the order of dismissal, he raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.513 of 1999 on the file of the 2^nd respondent. The Labour Court passed an award directing the 1^st respondent to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- as compensation to the petitioner, if the petitioner hands over the vacant quarters and the land belonging to the 1^st respondent, within three months. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submitted that, during the pendency of the writ petition, the quarters was damaged, thereby the petitioner had vacated the same and residing along with his son. Further, he submitted that, though at the age of 54 years, the petitioner had filed the present writ petition, however, now, the petitioner has crossed the age of superannuation. He further submitted that, earlier the Labour Court had fixed a sum of Rs.40,000/- as compensation in favour of the petitioner on 20.10.2010. Hence, he submitted that this Court may fix a reasonable compensation in favour of the petitioner. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent submitted that for proven mis-conduct, a charge memo was issued to the petitioner. After obtaining an explanation and conducting a proper enquiry, he was removed from service. This issue was rightly appreciated by the Labour Court and ordered a sum of Rs.40,000/- as compensation, which does not require any interference. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent and perused the materials available on record.

6. Admittedly, the petitioner was dismissed from service after conducting proper enquiry on 15.02.1997, against which, an Industrial Dispute was raised before the 2^nd respondent/Labour Court and the Labour Court ordered a sum of Rs.40,000/- as compensation and directed the petitioner to vacate the quarters as well as the land occupied by him.

7. A perusal of the Award reveals that the petitioner rendered the service to the 1^st respondent only on contractual basis and at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was residing continuously in the quarters belonging to the 1^st respondent without paying any rent and is in occupation of the land belonging to the 1^st respondent. At that point of time, the management of the 1^st respondent is not in existence, thereby, the Labour Court ordered for payment of Rs.40,000/- as compensation to the petitioner, since the reinstatement of the petitioner under the 1^st respondent is not possible, which does not require any interference. 8. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel