WP (C) No.6408/2006 Page 1 of 3 * HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI + WP (C) No. 6408/2006 M/S. JAI AUTO INDUSTRIES …..Petitioner Through: Mr. Satender Verma, Advocate Versus SH. MAMAN SINGH …..Respondent Through: Nemo. Judgment pronounced on : 17th May, 2010 Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported No in the Digest? MANMOHAN SINGH, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner M/s. Jai Auto Industries under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing/setting aside the award dated 21.10.2005 awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/- in favour of the workman. 2. The main contention of the petitioner is that initially the petitioner offered Rs.40,000/- as lump sum amount to settle the matter amicably ignoring the fact that the respondent did not report for duty despite a specific offer and remained absent which disentitled the respondent from any relief. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Labour Court exceeded its power in awarding WP (C) No.6408/2006 Page 2 of 3 Rs.50,000/- to the workman when the Labour Court answered the reference against the workman holding that the workman had stopped reporting for duties. Various decisions have been referred in the grounds of appeal. 3. I have gone through the award passed by the Labour Court and the main reasons for awarding Rs.50,000/- to the workman are mentioned in paras 8 and 9 of the award. They read as under: “8. From the perusal I found that order sheet of dtd. 19.7.2004 there is a noting by my Predecessor that during the argument from both the sides and for settlement they were given time and when they came back the employer offered a sum of Rs.40,000/- as lump-sum compensation but the workman did not come forward to accept it. Anyhow I find that workman did not go to join the services of the management even after receiving a letter to which he gave his explanation that he was fearing to be involved by the management. In any case, it shows that it is the workman who did not dare to join for whatever may be the reasons. In these facts and circumstances of the matter, the reference has to be answered against the workman and it is held that it is the workman who stopped reporting for duty. 9. So far as the relief is concerned the management offered already a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand). However, the admitted fact of the matter is that the workman served to the management from 1985 to 1997 i.e. for about 12 years and his last drawn wages were Rs.2232/- per month and the dispute is pending since 1997. In these facts and circumstances of the matter I grant a sum of Rs.50,000/- to be paid by the management to the claimant.” 4. After having gone through the reasons given by the Labour Court, this Court is of the opinion that it will not interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court due to the reason that admittedly, the petitioner had given an offer before the Labour Court to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- as lump-sum compensation which has been observed by the WP (C) No.6408/2006 Page 3 of 3 Labour Court also. Secondly, the workman served the management from 1985 to 1997 i.e. for 12 years and considering all the facts and circumstances, the Labour Court has granted him a sum of Rs.50,000/- to be paid by the management. 5. During the course of arguments, it has not been denied by the counsel for the petitioner that there was an offer to settle the dispute between the parties for a sum of Rs.40,000/- as lump-sum compensation. 6. Without going into any technicalities of the matter, I am of the view that the view taken by the Labour Court is reasonable and this Court does not want to interfere with the finding given by it. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed. No orders as to costs. MANMOHAN SINGH, J. MAY 17, 2010 jk