IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.13537 of 2002 Date of decision:13.10.2009 Varinder Kumar and others ...Petitioners versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda and another. ...Respondents. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr.Anupam, Singla, Advocate, for the petitioners. None for the respondent. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The legal representatives of the deceased workman challenged the award only in so far as it provided for a compensation of Rs.45,000/- which according to them, was not adequate. The workman, during his life time, had sought a reference on the ground that the termination was illegal. The management sought to justify its action by contending that the workman had been guilty of misappropriation and the enquiry constituted after due notice resulted in a finding of guilt. The workman assailed the finding by stating that against the finding of an Enquiry Officer Surjit Singh, he had preferred an appeal to the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Society, Mansa, who by his order dated 28.05.1996, directed the remand of the case and a fresh Enquiry Officer was directed to be appointed, finding fault with the enquiry conducted by a person, who was an auditor of the Society. It appears from the records Civil Writ Petition No.13537 of 2002 - 2 - that yet another Enquiry Officer Shri Rajinder Singh Walia had been appointed as an Enquiry Officer. It was this report on the basis of which the ultimate punishment was inflicted on the workman terminating his services. 2. Before the Labour Court when the issue whether the enquiry had been fair and proper, the report of the Enquiry Officer himself had not been filed. The management again placed its reliance on the report of the first officer Surjit Singh and the Labour Court held that after an order had been passed by the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Society directing a fresh enquiry to be made by appointment of another Enquiry Officer, the reliance on the first report was not justified. The Labour Court, under such circumstance, held that there was no proper enquiry and there was no ground to justify his termination. However, since the workman had died at the time of enquiry, the Labour Court only directed the compensation of Rs.45,000/- within 30 days after the publication of the award. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the workman's legal representatives would contend that, at the relevant time when an order of termination was made, the workman was drawing a salary of Rs.3,246/- and his yearly earning was, therefore, about Rs.39,000/-. He had died on 24.06.2000 and the workman would have, therefore, earned for another 4 years. The award of Rs.45,000/- amounted to merely a grant of compensation for just over a year's wage. 4. I find that the Labour Court had not set out any basis for determination of the amount. The Labour Court ought to have treated Civil Writ Petition No.13537 of 2002 - 3 - the workman as entitled to be treated as in employment upto the date of his death. The learned counsel is unable to give me any details as to whether the amount awarded by the Labour Court was deposited before the Labour Court or whether the petitioners had been paid the amount awarded. There was a reference even in the claim statement that the workman had remained unemployed and that should have been taken by the Labour Court for consideration of the award of back wages. Taking his salary to be Rs.3,246/- as contended by the petitioners and providing for an employment of 4 years, the workman would have earned little more than Rs.1,50,000/-. The Court had awarded Rs.45,000/- and in my view, the award of further amount of Rs.1 lakh would meet the ends of justice. Although the learned counsel sought for payment of interest from the date of the death itself, I would think, it would be appropriate to balance the equities of the workmen not having actually worked during that period and hence not to allow for interest from the date of death or the date of award but the amount of Rs.1 lakh in addition to the amount already granted shall be paid to the petitioners within a period of 4 weeks, failing which it shall attract interest of 9% per annum till the date of payment. The award of the Labour Court is modified to that extent only and the writ petition is allowed in the above terms. The petitioners shall be at liberty to pursue the remedy for terminal benefits of the workmen that they are entitled to before the appropriate forum. (K.KANNAN) 13.10.2009 JUDGE sanjeev