$- * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI #30 f ANIL SAMUEL w. P. (C) s0s4/2011 1 Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Dibya Nishant, Advocate. VETSUS VVS PHILCO STEELS ..... Respondent CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER 20.07.2011 1. The Petitioner workman is aggrieved by an Award dated 13th August 2010 by the Labour Court disposing of ID No. 1280 of 2004 to the extent that it directs only payment of compensation to the workman in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- despite holding that his services were terminated illegally by the Respondent management. 2. The Petitioner claimed to have worked with the management as a Driver since 1|th March 1997. He claimed that his last drawn salary was Rs. 5,500/- per month. He alleged that on 10th May 2003, the management forcibly oh f w.P. (c) No, 5054 of 2017 Page 7 of 3 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified I ( 4/, \-./ obtained his signature on some blank papers and relieved him services without paying wages for the month of April and a portion of May 2003. The management in its written statement denied that that the Petitioner \,vas its workman. As regards the relationship of employer and employee, the workman did not place on record any appointment letter as he denied that he had not been issued any such letter. There were documents to show a long 'co-existence' between the Petitioner and the management and on this basis, it was held that the workman was employed by the management. Since the management was not able to show that it had followed the procedure under Section 25F or Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('ID Act'), the termination of the Petitioner's services was held to be illegal. As regards the compensation, since the Labour Court had no means to ascertain the precise amount, it quantified the compensation at the sum of Rs. 30,000/-. 3. X{r. Dibya Nishant, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that once the Labour Court held the termination to be illegal, it . ought to have granted the relief of reinstatement with fuIl back wages with i attendant benefits and continuity of service. Further it was submitted that the compensation in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- was wholly inadequate. \. w.P. (c) No. 5054 of 2071 Pdge 2 ol 3 A:. , ( ''t-' \ \'/ 4. The above submissions have been considered. Perusal of the iffined Award and the documents placed on record indicate that there was nothing to show the precise earnings of the Petitioner while he was engaged as a driver by the Respondent. The closure of the Respondent unit was held to be not proved only because it had not been able to show that it had complied with the legal formalities under Section 25FFA and Section 25FFF of the ID Act. It is not clear, therefore, whether the Respondent unit was in fact functional. 5. In the circumstances, the relief of lump-sum compensation in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- awarded to the Petitioner by the Labour Court cannot be said to be inappropriate. 6. There is no ground made out dismissed. for interference. fhe writ petition is v v. JULY 2O,2OI1 fra S. MURALIDHAR. J w.P, (c) No. 5054 of 2011 Page 3 of 3