WP(C) No.23748/2009 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) NO. 23748/2005 Date of Decision: 4th May, 2009 % M/s M. K. Plastic …. Petitioner Through Mr. K.K. Chabbra, Advocate Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. …. Respondents Through Mr. Sanjay Visen and Mr. R. Pandey, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NO V. K. SHALI, J. (Oral) * 1. The petitioner in the instant case has challenged the award in ID No.46/86 in case titled M/s M.K. Plastic Vs. S/Sh. Inderdev Singh, Shobh Nath Singh, Swami Nath Singh and Lal Bahadur, C/o Rajdhani General Mazdoor Ekta Union passed by learned Labour Court No.II on 9th July, 2004 wherein the learned Labour Court has held that the services of the respondents/workmen were terminated illegally and unjustifiably, however, keeping in view the facts of the case the learned Labour Court instead of granting the reinstatement and payment of full back wages, awarded compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- to WP(C) No.23748/2009 Page 2 of 4 each workman in lieu of reinstatement and payment of full back wages. The petitioner has challenged the said finding on merits as well as on the quantum of compensation. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Most of the grounds which has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are pertaining to the question of appreciation of evidence. It is settled legal position that the scope of judicial review of the award passed by the learned Labour Court is very limited. The High Court in exercise of said power of judicial review can set aside the award only if there is violation of principles of natural justice or it is based on no evidence that is say that it is perverse or it violates any rule or regulation. 3. Coming back to the facts of the present case, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show in any manner as to how the award is liable to be interfered both on the question of violation of principle of natural justice or perversity or what rule or regulation has been violated. 4. The learned Labour Court after analysis of the evidence has held there is a relationship of employee and employer between the parties and the fact that their services have been terminated illegally and unjustifiably by the petitioner/management without compliance of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On the question of relief which is to be given to the respondents/workmen, the WP(C) No.23748/2009 Page 3 of 4 learned Labour Court has arrived at a finding of a fact that this is not a fit case where a direction should be given for reinstatement and payment of full back wages. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner have rendered a long length of service with the petitioner, therefore, an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- be paid to each of the workman as a onetime compensation in lieu of reinstatement or the payment of full back wages. 5. The law regarding grant of relief on account of holding the termination as illegal and unjustifiable is very well settled. The Supreme Court in catena of cases has laid down that once the termination is held to be illegal and unjustifiable it does not ipso facto result in passing an order of reinstatement. The learned Labour Court has still the discretion to direct the payment of compensation in lieu thereof. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the following authorities: Rajasthan Lalit Kala Academy Vs. Radhey Shyam JT 2008 (8) SC 311. 6. While calculating the compensation to be paid in lieu of reinstatement by the workman various factors which are not enumerated, have been taken on account. These factors are the number of years of service put in by the employee, the amount of wages drawn by him, the kind of work which he has done and the possibility of getting alternative employment. Once these factors are taken into account, the learned Labour Court can also fix the compensation which WP(C) No.23748/2009 Page 4 of 4 has been done in the instant case by fixing a uniform compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-. There is absolutely no justification of tempering with the said quantum of compensation because this Court sits as a superior Court. The respondents/workmen have rendered fairly a long length of service and has still long way to go which has been cut short by the illegal termination, therefore, even the quantum of compensation in my view does not warrant any interference. In Apparel Export Promotion Council Vs. A.K. Chopra (1999) 1 SCC 759 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the scope of judicial review in following words: “Judicial review, not being an appeal from a decision, but a review of the manner in which the decision was arrived at, the court, while exercising the power of judicial review, must remain conscious of the fact that if the decision has been arrived at by the administrative authority after following the principles established by law and the rules of natural justice and the individual has received a fair treatment to meet the case against him, the court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the administrative authority on a matter which fell squarely within the sphere of jurisdiction of that authority.” 7. For the forgoing reasons, the writ petition is without any merit and the same is dismissed. May 04, 2009 V.K. SHALI, J. KP