WP(C) Nos.19499/2005 & 15116/2006 Page 1 of 5 * THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Writ Petition (Civil) Nos.19499/2005 & 15116/2006 Date of Decision : 12.05.2009 1) Writ Petition (Civil) No.19499/2005 Shri Ramesh Chand Yadav ……Petitioner Through: Nemo Versus Secretary (Labour), Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. …… Respondents Through: Mr. M.K. Awtaney, 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. 1. The case has been called out twice, the learned counsel for the petitioner/workman has not appeared. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the respondent/management in W.P.(C) No. 19499/2005. The management is the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 15116/2006. I have also gone through the record. 3. The petitioner/workman in W.P. (C) No. 19499/2005 has challenged the award dated 3rd September, 2004 passed by learned Labour Court No.-II in ID No. 176/93 in case titled M/s Welcome Group Vs. Shri Ramesh Chand Yadav. The learned Labour Court has held that the petitioner/workman had WP(C) Nos.19499/2005 & 15116/2006 Page 2 of 5 completed 240 days of continuous work in a year and established the relationship of employee and employer between the parties and that the termination of services of the petitioner/workman w.e.f. 31st December, 1991 was in contravention of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and therefore, illegal and unjustified, however, the learned Labour Court instead of granting the benefit of reinstatement has ordered that the petitioner shall be paid one time lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement and the payment of back wages. This order was passed on account of the fact that there has been a gap of 12 years from the date of termination and the payment which was directed to be made was for a sum of Rs.70,000/- in lieu of reinstatement, full back wages and other legal benefits. 4. The petitioner felt aggrieved by virtue of the aforesaid impugned award regarding the payment of compensation and has assailed the same. 5. A perusal of the grounds of the petition would show that essentially the petitioner is aggrieved on account of the quantum of compensation though one of the grounds which has been taken is that he deserves to be reinstated with full back wags w.e.f 1st January, 1992. 6. It is settled by Apex Court in catena of authorities that merely on account of holding of the termination to be illegal and unjustified does not result in passing of order of reinstatement ipso facto and payment of full or otherwise back wages. The learned Labour Court in appropriate cases and in exercise of its WP(C) Nos.19499/2005 & 15116/2006 Page 3 of 5 discretion and keeping in view the various factors direct the payment of one time compensation in lieu of reinstatement and payment of back wages. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the following judgments : Employers, Management of Central P &D Inst. Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2005 (9) SCC 171 Mahboob Deepak Vs. Nagar Panchayat Gajraula 2008 (01) SCC 575 Branch Manager, M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corpn. Ltd & Anr. Vs. Shri S. C. Pandey 2006 (2) SCALE 619 Rajasthan Lalit Kala Academy Vs. Radhey Shyam JT 2008 (8) SC 311 Madhya Pradesh Administration Vs. Tribhuban 2007 (5) SCALE 387 Haryana Trourism Corporation Ltd. Vs. Fakir Chand etc. 2003 (8) SCC 248 Rolston John Vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court and Ors. AIR 1994 SC 131 State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Des Bandhu 2007 (9) SCC 39 7. So far as the question of reinstatement and payment of back wages is concerned, the said benefit has not been given by the learned Labour Court in exercise of its discretion and there is no reason or occasion for this writ Court to sit as a court of appeal and substitute its own view in place of the view of the learned Labour Court below. 8. As regards the quantum of compensation also it has been stated in the award that the petitioner/workman was getting wages of Rs.1450/- per month and the period for which he has worked with the respondent/workman is w.e.f. 1st November, WP(C) Nos.19499/2005 & 15116/2006 Page 4 of 5 1990 to 31st October, 1991 though the petitioner/workman is claiming to have served the respondent/management for more than a decade, but there is no finding of fact given by the learned Labour Court that the petitioner/workman has served the organization for nearly a decade. Therefore, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner/workman had worked for 240 days in a year (from 1st November, 1990 to 31st October, 1991) and his emoluments were Rs.1450/- per month and the fact that there was a gap of more than 12 years from the date of alleged termination to the date of award, the learned Labour Court granted a sum of Rs.70,000/- as compensation which is just, fair and reasonable. 9. However, as the aforesaid amount was ordered to be paid by the learned Labour Court vide award dated 3rd September, 2004 and still remains unpaid nor this amount has been deposited by the respondent/management either in this Court or before the learned Labour Court, therefore, this amount has been utilized by them for their business purpose and/or has remained in their bank accounts thereby earning them interest on the said amount. 10. In these circumstances, it will be not only in the interest of justice but also just and proper that the petitioner ought to give interest on the aforesaid principal amount of Rs.70,000/- from the date of the award dated 3rd September, 2004 till the actual payment is made by the respondent/management to the petitioner or the same is deposited in this Court. WP(C) Nos.19499/2005 & 15116/2006 Page 5 of 5 11. I, accordingly direct the respondent/management to pay interest @5% per annum on the amount of Rs.70,000/- w.e.f. 3rd September, 2004 till the date the aforesaid amount is actually paid to the petitioner/management or it is deposited with the learned Registrar General of this Court. To that extant the award dated 3rd September, 2004 stands modified. 12. So far as the W.P. (C) No. 15116/2006 it is not pressed by the learned counsel on account of the fact that the award in question has been upheld on the question of quantum of compensation which has been paid to the workman except that he has been granted interest, accordingly, the writ bearing no. 15116/2006 is treated to have been dismissed as withdrawn. The respondent/management is directed to pay directly to the workman or deposit the aforesaid amount of Rs.70,000/- along with the interest within a period of four weeks from today failing of which it shall carry an interest @10%. With these directions, the impugned award dated 3rd September, 2004 in ID No. 176/93 in both writ petitions stand modified. V.K. SHALI, J. May 12, 2009 kp