* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No. 10192/2009 % Date of Decision: 20 July, 2009 # Laxmi Kant Jha ..... PETITIONER ! Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate. VERSUS $ Post & Telegraphs Department .....RESPONDENT ^ Through: Mohd. Mannan, Advocate. CORAM: Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL 1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? YES 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YES S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) This writ petition filed by the workman (the petitioner herein) is directed against an award dated 23.05.2008 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court awarding an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to him in lieu of his claim for reinstatement and back wages. 2 Heard. 3 Mr. Anuj Aggarwal learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relying upon four judgments of the Supreme Court in (i) Management of Agro Food Private Limited Vs. S. Rajulu (decided on 03.04.2008; SLP (Civil) No. 4735/2006); (ii) UP State Electricity Board Vs. Laxmi Kant Gupta (decided on 26.09.2008; SLP (Civil) No. 10437/2006); (iii) Rajasthan Lalit Kala Academy Vs. Radhey Shyam; JT 2008 (9) SC 311 W.P.(C) No.10192/2009 Page 1 of 3 and (v)Talwara Corporation Credit and Service Society Limited Vs. Sushil Kumar (decided on 01.10.2008; SLP (Civil) No.336/2005) contends that the compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal below is quite inadequate and for that reason, according to him, the impugned award suffers from perversity. 4 I have considered the judgments referred and relied upon by the petitioner's counsel but in my opinion, those judgments are not applicable to the facts of this case. In none of these cases, the workman was appointed as a daily rated workman by way of back door entry. I am of the view that each case has to be decided on its own merits. In the present case, the petitioner was appointed by the respondent as car driver w.e.f. 17.02.1986 as a daily rated workman at a fixed salary of Rs.562/- per month. Admittedly no advertisement was issued for filling up the post of car driver to which the petitioner was appointed. The petitioner admittedly did not make any application for his appointment. His appointment with the respondent was a back door entry. He had hardly worked for about one year four months as a daily rated workman at a fixed salary of Rs.562/- when his services were dispensed with by the respondent w.e.f. 17.06.1987. During the period of one year four months the petitioner worked with the respondent, he hardly got less than Rs.8,000/- in the entire period from the respondent management towards his wages. Now he has been awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- by the tribunal below which in my view by no means can be said to be inadequate. While determining the quantum of compensation, the Court has to take into account the nature of appointment, period for which the workman has worked and also all other related factors. In this case I do not find any perversity in the impugned award of the court below. W.P.(C) No.10192/2009 Page 2 of 3 5 For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition which fails and is hereby dismissed in limine. JULY 20, 2009 S.N.AGGARWAL, J 'a' W.P.(C) No.10192/2009 Page 3 of 3