HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.8667 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.10.2011 **** Group 4 Securitas Ltd. . . . . Petitioner VS. Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Gurgaon & Anr. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Ravi Kant Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP No.8667 of 2010 for respondent No.2 in CWP No.2588 of 2011 Mr. Deepak Balyan, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP No.2588 of 2011 for respondent No.2 in CWP No.8667 of 2010 **** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) CWP No.8667 of 2010.doc - 2 – (1). This order shall dispose of CWP No.8667 of 2010; 2588 of 2011 filed by the Management and the workman, respectively challenging the Award dated 06.01.2010 (Annexure P5) passed by Labour Court-II, Gurgaon whereby the workman has been awarded compensation of Rs.75,000/- in lieu of reinstatement in service. The Management impugns the Award primarily on the plea that the workman had abandoned the employment. On the other hand, the workman assails the Award to the extent of denial of relief of re-instatement to him. (2). The undisputed facts are that the workman (Narender Kumar) was employed as a Head Guard by the petitioner- Management/Security Agency in November, 1993 and served till 11.08.1997 when his services were allegedly terminated. The workman soon thereafter served the Management with a demand notice alleging his wrongful retrenchment without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, ‘the Act’). The Labour -cum-Conciliation Officer issued notice on 20.11.1997 calling the Management on 22.12.1997 but the conciliation failed. The industrial dispute raised by the workman was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court-II, Gurgaon who vide the impugned award dated 06.01.2010 has discarded the Management’s plea that the 2 CWP No.8667 of 2010.doc - 3 – workman himself abandoned the employment and having found that he worked for more than 240 days continuously preceding his retrenchment has held him entitled to compensation of Rs.75,000/- instead of reinstatement in service. (3). I have heard learned counsel for the parties in support of their rival contentions and gone through the record. (4). The Management’s plea that the workman abandoned the employment, in my considered view, carries no weight for more than one reason. The fact that the workman immediate after the alleged abandonment of employment on 11.08.1997 raised the industrial dispute by itself is a strong circumstance to infer that he did not leave the employment at his own. (5). The Management’s plea that several letters were sent to the workman to resume duties has been discarded by the Labour Court and rightly so after observing that the documents Ex.MW-I and Ex.MW-II are shrouded by suspicion and appears to have been fabricated as none of the letters were sent through registered post. In these circumstances, the pure finding of fact returned by the Labour Court on appreciation of the evidence on record calls for no interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 3 CWP No.8667 of 2010.doc - 4 – (6). The writ petition filed by the Management is therefore liable to be dismissed. (7). Ordered accordingly. (8). Adverting to the claim of the workman for reinstatement and/or enhancement of compensation, it stands indicated during the course of hearing that the workman is not keen to give up his claim for backwages and seek reinstatement in service. (9). The short question that survives is whether the lumpsum compensation of Rs.75,000/- in the facts and circumstances of the case is adequate or not? (10). The workman admittedly remained in employment for less than four years. Following the guiding principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in more than one decisions on the tentative amount of compensation for which a manual workman would ordinarily be entitled to, the compensation of Rs.20000/- per year, appears to be just and reasonable. The compensation of Rs.75,000/- awarded by the Labour Court in the facts and circumstances, therefore, cannot be said to be inadequate or insufficient. (11). For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition of the workman is also liable to fail and is dismissed accordingly. It may also be mentioned that the workman 4 CWP No.8667 of 2010.doc - 5 – shall be entitled to interest @ 6% as awarded by the Labour Court. (12). Dasti . 14.10.2011 vishal shonkar (SURYA KANT) Judge 5