$~15

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

W.P.(C) 13528/2019

PUNJAB NATIONA BANK

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Rajat Arora and Mr. Miraj

Kumar, Advocates.

versus

SHRI VINESH SAH

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Krishan Kumar Advocate for

respondent.

%

Date of Decision: 14^th September, 2022

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

J U D G M E N T

DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J. (Oral)

1.

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order

dated 04.07.2019 whereby the learned CGI in I D No. 39/16 titled as

“Dinesh Shah Vs. Circle and Punjab National Bank” allowed the claim

petition and directed the bank to reinstate the workman into service

with 50% back wages and continuity of service .

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the award and has

predominantly argued on the issue of the reinstatement. Learned

counsel has submitted that as per the latest trend of the judgments

delivered by this court and the Supreme Court of India, it has been held

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003807

that even if the termination is found to be illegal, the reinstatement is

not a rule. It has been submitted that the lump sum compensation has

been ordered to be paid by the courts. Learned counsel has relied upon

the judgment of “BSNLVs. Bhuremal”.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that the

respondent/workman has only worked with the petitioner/management

for two–three years.

4.

In the case of BSNL vs. Man Singh (2012) 1 SCC 558, the Apex Court

held that when the termination is set aside because of violation of 25F

of the ID Act, it is not necessary that the relief of reinstatement be

given as a matter of right.

5.

In Incharge Officer vs. Shankar Shetty (2010) 9 SCC 126, it was inter

alia held that in those cases where the workman had worked on daily

wage basis, and worked merely for a period of 240 days or 2-3 years

and where the termination had taken place many years ago, the recent

trend was to grant compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

6.

In BSNL vs. Bhurumal (supra), taking the trend further, the Supreme

Court inter alia held as under:-

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003807

7.

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that as per the instructions

from his client, it would be satisfactory, if the award is modified to the

extent that the sum of Rs. 2 lakhs deposited with this court in terms of

the order dated 20.12.2019 be released to him alongwith the interest

accrued thereon.

8.

Taking into account the entire facts and circumstances of the case and

the submissions of learned counsel for the respondent, the impugned

award is modified to the extent that a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs deposited by

the petitioner/management with this court be released to the

respondent/workman alongwith interest accrued thereon.

9.

The writ petition stands disposed of.

DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J

SEPTEMBER 14, 2022/sr

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003807