( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3126 OF 1991 Suresh s/o Jayram Dhapatkar, Chandrajaya Near F.C.I. Godown, Kelgav-Devi, Ahmednagar. PETITIONER VERSUS The Manager, M/s Meghnand Food Products, D-84, M.I.D.C. Indl. Area, Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar. RESPONDENT ..... Mr. S.V. Natu, advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. ..... WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2562 OF 1991 The Manager, M/s Meghanand Food Products, D-84, M.I.D.C. Indl. Area, Ahmednagar. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Suresh s/o Jayram Dhapatkar, R/o 7, Shakuntala Apartment, Professor Colony, Savedi, ( 2 ) Ahmednagar. 2. The Joint Agricultural Marketing Adviser to the Govt. of India, Branch Head Office (Department of Rural Development), New Secretariate Building, Nagpur. 3. The Deputy Agricultural Marketing Adviser, Govt. of India, Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Rural Development, Directorate of Marketing of Inspection, Regional Office, Western Region, New C.C.O. Building, Bombay. 4. M/s Kamalesh Food Products, D-29, M.I.D.C., Ahmednagar. RESPONDENTS ..... None for the petitioner. Mr. S.V. Natu, advocate for respondent No.1. None for the other respondents. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 11th February, 2010] ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. By this common judgement, both the above petitions are being disposed of together in as much as they arise out of same judgement and order rendered by the learned Member of Industrial Court, Ahmednagar, in ( 3 ) complaint (ULP) No. 78/1989. 2. One of the writ petitions (W.P. No. 3126/1991) is filed by Suresh s/o Jayram Dhapatkar who was original complainant before the Industrial Court. He is dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded to him instead of granting relief of reinstatement and backwages. Another petition (W.P. No. 2562/1991)is filed by the employer – M/s Meghanand Food Products, being dissatisfied with the part of the relief granted in favour of the complainant vide the impugned judgement and order. 3. By the impugned judgement and order, the Industrial Court held that complainant Suresh was not entitled to seek reinstatement and backwages in as much as he had lost confidence of the employer. The Industrial Court came to the conclusion that he was entitled to receive salary for period of three months in lieu of the notice for retrenchment and other benefits amounting to Rs. 75,000/-. The Industrial Court came to the conclusion that amount of Rs. 75,000/- would be ( 4 ) inadequate in lieu of relief of reinstatement and the other claims sought by complainant Suresh. 4. The facts are few. Indisputably, complainant Suresh was appointed as Chemist on establishment of M/s Meghanand Food Products, w.e.f. 01-12-1977. He served with the employer till May, 1980. He tendered resignation in the month of May, 1980. He was discontinued from service but was re-employed by the employer in the month of December, 1982. He worked as a Chemist thereafter till first week of December, 1988. He again tendered the resignation on 10-12-1988 but it was wrongly addressed to the Deputy Agricultural Marketing Adviser and copy thereof was forwarded to the employer. The Deputy Agricultural Marketing Adviser informed complainant Suresh to tender the resignation to the employer. The resignation was conditional. The employee had certain grievances about functioning of the employer and the manner in which he was being paid the salaries. The employer discontinued his services. Complainant Suresh, therefore, approached the Industrial Court alleging that he was wrongly terminated though the ( 5 ) resignation letter was outcome of involuntary act. He contended that it was a conditional resignation tendered by him due to harassment at hands of the Management of the employer – M/s Meghanand Food Products. The employer denied all the material averments in the complaint. The employer asserted that the complainant – Suresh had lost confidence and, therefore, was not entitled to seek reinstatement. 5. The learned Member of the Industrial Court came to the conclusion that complainant – Suresh was subjected to unfair labour practices by the employer. He was harassed. His resignation letter was involuntary and conditional. Therefore, the termination was bad in law. Still, however, since he had lost confidence of the employer, he was entitled only to get compensation in lieu of the notice of retrenchment and for the bonus at rate of 8.33 per cent, etc. 6. Heard learned counsel Mr. Natu for the complainant – Suresh. None appeared for the employer. ( 6 ) 7. There is no question of reinstatement of the complainant – Suresh. Mr. Natu would submit that the amount of compensation awarded to complainant Suresh is meager. He would submit that even otherwise, complainant Suresh was entitled to seek retrenchment compensation under section 25 (F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He would submit that the benefits available under section 33 (C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act are on different footings. He contended that complainant Suresh is deprived of the main relief of reinstatement though there was no much material on record to show that the employer had lost confidence in him. He would submit that the employer did not explain in the written statement as to how the complainant had lost confidence. Yet, such plea sprang up during course of the argument and was accepted. Mr. Natu would submit that appropriate compensation may be awarded to complainant Suresh. 8. In the context, Dictum of the Apex Court in “O.P. Bhandari v. Indian Tourism Development Corpn. Ltd. ( 7 ) and others” (1986) 4 SCC 337 may be referred. The Apex Court noticed that the employee had yet to complete eight (8) years’ service when he was illegally terminated. The Apex Court held that compensation equivalent to 3.33 years’ salary including allowances besides provident fund and retirement benefits as well as costs would be proper compensation. In “Sh. Narendra Kumar v. Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank & others” 2009 (8) Scale 255, the Apex Court enhanced compensation from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 1 lac with a caution note that it shall not be treated as precedent. Similar view appears to have been taken in “Awadesh Chandra Agarwal v. Divisional Manager, L.I.C. of India” 2008 DGKS (Sift,) 2187 and “Shriram Refrigeration Industries v. Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum- additional Labour Court” 2001 (6) Supreme 400. 9. It is explicit that grant of three (3) months’ salary could not be adequate compensation. This is not a case of retrenchment for the reason that the Industrial Unit was being closed or work was not ( 8 ) available. The work was available and complainant Suresh had serious reason to feel uncomfortable in the surrounding circumstances of the working place. He always complained of improper treatment given to him. His service conditions were not improved though he ventilated his grievances time and again. Eventually, he had tendered conditional resignation. The Industrial Court found that the termination of complainant Suresh was illegal. Once it is found that he was illegally terminated, normally, he was entitled to seek reinstatement. The plea of loss of confidence was raised at the fag end during course of argument before the Industrial Court. The complainant – Suresh was not in charge of any valuable property, nor he was having custody of any secret documents. No finding is rendered as to what kind of trouble-maker he would have been if his reinstatement was ordered. Considering these aspects, mere retrenchment compensation and some other fringe benefits cannot be deemed as proper compensation, which can be granted to him. 10. By applying the ratio of the Apex Court’s ( 9 ) judgement in “O.P. Bhandari v. Indian Tourism Development Corpn. Ltd. and others” (supra), it is held that the complainant – Suresh was entitled to 3.33 years’ salary including allowances besides the other benefits. The said amount comes to the tune of of Rs. 81,000/-. It would be appropriate to award interest at rate of nine (9) per cent per annum on the amount due. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be modified. 11. In the result, the petition filed by complainant – Suresh (W.P. No. 3126/1991) is partly allowed. Instead of compensation of Rs. 75,000/-, he will be entitled to compensation of Rs. 81,000/- alongwith interest thereon at rate of nine (9) per cent per annum from the date of illegal termination till the entire amount is paid to him. The amounts already paid to him shall be deducted from such payable amount. He will be also entitled to costs of Rs. 25,000/- of the present writ petitions and the proceedings before the Industrial Court, together, which shall be paid by the employer within period of two (2) months. The writ ( 10 ) petition No. 2562/1991 is destitute of substance and as such, is dismissed. The remaining benefits granted by the Industrial Court are maintained. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/wp3126-2562-91