WP(C) No. 17795/2006 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) NO. 17795/2006 % Dated : 17.03.2009 SHRI SATYAPAL SINGH …. Petitioner Through Mr. Sanjay Gosh, Advocate Versus THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S RATHI INDUSTRIES LTD. …. Respondent Through Mr. S.C. Joshi, Advocate 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 has challenged the award dated 29th July, 2006 passed by Mr. Sudesh Kumar, Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.XX, Karkardooma, Delhi in new ID No. 058/2006 and old ID No. 255/1995 in the case titled GD Rathi Steels Ltd. Vs. Satyapal Singh. By virtue of the aforesaid award the learned Labour Court has directed the respondent/management to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- only to the petitioner. The reason for WP(C) No. 17795/2006 Page 2 of 4 granting such a low amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation in lieu of reinstatement and payment of back wages is on account of the fact that the workman himself had admitted that during the course of the recording of evidence he was unemployed only for a period of two years. 2. The petitioner by virtue of the present writ petition is contending that once there is a finding on the question of the fact that the termination of the services of the petitioner/workman was illegal and unjustified he ought to have been granted back wages or reinstatement and instead of that only a sum of Rs. 10,000/- has been granted. The learned counsel also contended that the petitioner/workman has very fairly admitted that after the termination of his services on 21st September, 1995 he had obtained employment with M/s G.D. Industries after remaining unemployed for two years. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner normally the workman denies having worked in an alternative establishment in a case of this nature. The petitioner in a very forthright, candid and true manner has stated that he was unemployed only for the two years between the period from 20th July, 1994 to 20th July, 1996, and therefore, at least for this period the petitioner ought to have been granted the compensation which could have been calculated at the minimum wage which was payable for the said period or alternatively on the WP(C) No. 17795/2006 Page 3 of 4 basis of Rs. 1526/- which was the last drawn wage of the petitioner/workman. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that his last drawn wages was 1,526/- a total amount payable to the petitioner/workman would be a sum of Rs. approximately 36,000/- or so. While as if the said amount is calculated on the minimum wages applicable to the petitioner/workman then the petitioner is entitled to payment of approximately Rs.43,400/- or so. In this background of this, it was contended that the order of compensation should be suitably modified so as to grant a reasonable compensation in lieu of reinstatement to the petitioner/workman. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the respondent also. The learned counsel for the respondent has raised essentially question of appreciation of evidence which are not relevant so far as the disposal of the present writ petition is concerned. 4. I have thoughtfully considered the submissions made before me. So far as the grant of compensation which has been granted to the petitioner/workman by the learned Labour Court No.XX in the shape of Rs. 10,000/- is concerned, prima facie, in my view is grossly inadequate. This becomes all the more so on account of the fact that the petitioner is being punished for being very candid and forthright that he was employed in another establishment in or around Delhi after remaining unemployed for a period of two WP(C) No. 17795/2006 Page 4 of 4 years. Therefore, I am of the considered view the compensation ought to have been calculated at least at the rate of last drawn wages or the minimum wages for these two years i.e. for the period 20th July, 1994 to 20th July, 1996 which ought to have been granted to him by way of compensation. To that extent that the learned Labour Court has fallen into a grave error in granting only a sum of Rs. 10,000/- which by no stretch of imagination can be said to be just, fair and reasonable compensation after holding the termination of service to be illegal and unjustified. 5. I, accordingly, modify the award passed by the learned Labour Court dated 29th July, 2006 by enhancing the compensation from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.44,000/- which is calculated at the rate of Rs. 1806 per month being a minimum wages for a period when he remained unemployed. To that extent the award of the learned Labour Court dated 29th July, 2006 in new ID No. 058/2006 stands modified. The petitioner is further directed to pay a cost of Rs. 6000/-. With these directions the writ petition is disposed of. MARCH 17, 2009 V.K. SHALI, J. KP