* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C.) No. 8258/2003 % Date of Decision: 28th July, 2009 # SHRI RAJ PAL SINGH ..... PETITIONER ! Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate. VERSUS $ HORTICULTURE/FOREST DEPARTMENT OF DELHI ADMINISTRATION .....RESPONDENT ^ Through: Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate. CORAM: Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL 1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2. To be referred to the reporter or not?NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?NO S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) The petitioner Shri Raj Pal Singh, in this writ petition, is aggrieved by award of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to him by the Industrial Adjudicator vide award dated 26.04.2003 in ID No. 184/95 (Old ID No. 441/94) in lieu of his claim for reinstatement and back wages. 2. Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has argued that the compensation of Rs. 50,000/- awarded by the Industrial Adjudicator is inadequate and on very low side and in support of his said contention, he has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Telecom District Manager & Others Vs. Keshab Deb (2008) 8 SCC 402 and relying on the said judgment, he has argued that since the Supreme Court has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- to a daily wager who had worked only for 5 years the compensation to the petitioner should also be suitably enhanced in view W.P.(C) No. 8258/2003 Page 1 of 3 of the fact that he had served for 7 years as daily wager prior to his termination. 3. Mr. V.K. Tandon, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, has opposed this writ petition on the ground that this writ petition against the impugned award is not maintainable because according to him, the petitioner had received the awarded amount in terms of the impugned award prior to filing of the present petition. This objection to the maintainability of the writ petition taken by the respondent, in my view, is not tenable because the petitioner cannot be expected to wait for enhancement of the award amount before receiving the undisputed amount awarded to him by the Industrial Adjudicator. I, therefore, hold that the writ petition seeking enhancement of compensation is maintainable and has to be considered on merits of the case. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties on the question of quantum of compensation awarded by the Industrial Adjudicator to the petitioner in lieu of his claim for reinstatement and back wages. 5. The petitioner was appointed as a Beldar/Mali with the respondent on daily wages w.e.f. 09.10.1984. His services were terminated on 18.07.1991. He has worked for about 7 years with the respondent before his termination. His last drawn wages were Rs. 1,313/- per month. The Industrial Adjudicator taking all these facts into account, has awarded Rs. 50,000/- to the petitioner in lieu of his claim for reinstatement and back wages. The judgment in Telecom District Manager & Others Vs. Keshab Deb (supra) referred and relied upon by the petitioner's counsel is of no help to the petitioner because this judgment does not lay down thumb rule for payment of compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- to any daily W.P.(C) No. 8258/2003 Page 2 of 3 wager who has worked for 5 years or more. Each case has to be decided on its own merits. On being asked, the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner was not able to tell as to what were the wages of the daily wager in the case decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred-above. There is no straight jacket formula to arrive at a reasonable figure of compensation to which a workman is entitled in lieu of his claim for reinstatement. 6. In the opinion of this Court, the compensation of Rs. 50,000/- awarded by the Industrial Adjudicator to the petitioner appears to be reasonable taking into account his last drawn wages of Rs. 1,313/- per month and the period of service rendered by him with the respondent prior to his termination. Even if this Court in its perception feel that compensation awarded by the Industrial Adjudicator has to be marginally increased still it would not be appropriate to substitute the opinion of this Court on the quantum of compensation in place of the quantification done by the Industrial Adjudicator. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and for the foregoing reasons, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned award that may call for an interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. This writ petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. JULY 28, 2009 S.N.AGGARWAL, J 'bsr' W.P.(C) No. 8258/2003 Page 3 of 3