IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 3692 of 2009. Date of Decision : March 09, 2009. M/S Orient Paper and Industries Limited. ...... Petitioner. Versus. Murari Prasad, and another. ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the petitioner. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In this writ petition, the petitioner-management is challenging the amount of compensation granted by the Labour Court in lieu of reinstatement of the respondent-workman. Counsel for the petitioner- management contends that the Labour Court vide its order dated 28.05.2008 (Annexure-P-2) had come to a conclusion that the domestic inquiry conducted against the respondent-workman by the petitioner-management was fair and proper. He contends that no illegality was found by the Labour Court in the inquiry proceedings wherein the respondent-workman was held guilty after holding a fair and proper inquiry as the respondent- workman had refused to obey the orders of the petitioner-company. The Labour Court in these circumstances should have even if come to a conclusion that the punishment meted out to the respondent-workman was disproportionate to the charges proved against him, had granted C.W.P. No. 3692 of 2009. compensation which amounts to Rs. 6,00,000/- which is on a much higher side. He contends that this would not be the total amount the respondent- workman would have been entitled to in case he was reinstated in service, nor would it be the amount which the respondent-workman would have earned all through his service with the petitioner-management from the date of his appointment till the date of his termination. He, therefore, contends that the award of the Labour Court to that extent granting him compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/-, cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. He submits that the Labour Court although has power to interfere under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act as far as the quantum of punishment is concerned but while granting relief, the Labour Court need to take into consideration the act and conduct of the respondent- workman. He further submits that Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of U.B. Gadhe and others Versus Gujarat Ambuja Cement (P) Limited, 2007 (13) S.C.C. 634, has while considering this aspect with regard to grant of compensation has only granted Rs. 1,00,000/- to the respondent-workman and therefore, the Labour Court should not have granted the compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- as full and final settlement with respect to entire claim of the respondent-workman instead of reinstating him in service. I have gone through the impugned award and the records of the case with the able assistance of counsel for the petitioner but I am unable to persuade myself to interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court as far as quantum of compensation granted by it. It is an admitted position that the respondent-workman was appointed as a Helper on 23.08.1978. He was able and competent worker and therefore, was confirmed as a Semi Skilled Worker in Press Shop Department with effect from 01.09.1979. It has also -2- C.W.P. No. 3692 of 2009. come on record that he could work on most of the machines at the floor and further it has been established on the basis of the records that the respondent-workman was never previously chargesheeted or even warned prior to the chargesheet for which he was held guilty. It has been admitted by the management-witness that the respondent-workman was a competent employee and on consideration of the factual position it was culled out of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties by the Labour Court and came to a conclusion that it would be just and proper that the respondent- workman be awarded a total compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- as full and final settlement with respect to his entire claim instead of reinstating him in service. This primarily has been granted on the ground that the services of the respondent-workman were terminated for willful disobedience and in the interest of maintaining a discipline in the petitioner-company. The Labour Court has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court titled Management Aurofood Private Limited Versus S. Rajulu 2008-II-L.L.H.J. 1061 (S.C.), wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court has found that the charges which were proved against the respondent-workman were trivial but still instead of reinstatement the Court was pleased to grant him compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- as full and final settlement with respect to his entire claim. There can be no dispute that under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court exercises its discretionary powers keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case, the Labour Court has exercised its jurisdiction which has been conferred on it by the statute taking into consideration all the aspects relevant. The judgment which has been relied upon by counsel for the petitioner with regard to quantum of compensation, will not be of much help to the -3- C.W.P. No. 3692 of 2009. petitioner as determination of quantum of compensation depends on varied facts and circumstances of each case. In the present facts and circumstances of the case, the compensation as awarded by the Labour Court is justified and does not call for any interference by this Court. In this view of the matter, the present writ petition stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE March 09, 2009. sjks. -4-