1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.502 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2557 OF 2008 ALONGWITH APPEAL NO. 515 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2101 OF 2008 Ashraf Yunus Shaikh ......Appellant Versus Dena Bank ......Respondent Mr. P. M. Patel, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. S. K. Talsania, Sr. Advocate i/b. M/s. Sanjay Udeshi & Co. for Respondent. CORAM : D. K. DESHMUKH & R. V. MORE, JJ. DATED : 29TH APRIL, 2010. P.C.: Admit. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By both these appeals, same order passed by the learned Single Judge is challenged. Therefore, both the appeals can be conveniently disposed of by a common order. 2 3. The appellant was working with the respondent as a Sepoy from 8th September, 1986. In 1998, his services were discontinued. Industrial Dispute was raised and the dispute was referred to Labour Court. Award was made on 14th December, 2007. By the award, the respondent was directed to take the workman/appellant in service, but he was not to be paid any back-wages. Therefore, two writ petitions were filed in this Court, one by the workman challenging denial of back-wages and the other by the Bank-Respondent challenging grant of reinstatement and permanency. The learned Single Judge decided the petition principally relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Telecom District Manager & Ors. Vs. Keshab Deb reported in (2008) 8 SCC 402 and held that the Labour Court was not justified in granting either permanency or reinstatement in service, all that could have been granted is one month’s pay in lieu of one month’s notice and wages of 15 days for each calender year in terms of section 25(f) and disposed of, both the petitions. The workman is in appeal against that order by which both the writ petitions have been disposed of. The only submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant is that pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant would be getting hardly an amount of Rs.13,000/-. He submits that if the learned Single Judge has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the above case for denying permanency and reinstatement to the appellant, the learned Single Judge should also 3 have followed what the Supreme Court has said in paragraph no.24 of that judgment and awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. 4. We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the Bank, in our opinion, as the Supreme Court has after holding that the employee was not entitled to reinstatement and permanency, has awarded compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-, in our opinion considering that the appellant admittedly served with the Bank for a long period of nine years and considering that he was only a peon, the learned Single Judge should have awarded substantial amount as compensation. The Respondent -Bank has accepted the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that the termination of service of the workman was brought about in violation of section 25(f) of the Industrial Dispute Act. We find that doing, what has been done by the Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of Telecom District Manager & Ors. (supra), would serve the interest of justice. That order of the learned Single Judge is therefore, modified: i) The respondent is directed to pay Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation to the appellant. The payment shall be made within a period of eight weeks from today. 4 ii) Failure on the part of the Bank to make payment within a period of eight weeks, will result in Bank being liable to pay interest on the amount @ 9% p.a. from the expiry of eight weeks till the date of actual payment. Both the appeals are disposed of. (D. K. DESHMUKH, J.) (R. V. MORE, J.)