IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 5331 of 2009. Date of Decision : April 02, 2009. Suresh Chand. ....... Petitioner. Versus. Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Faridabad, and another. ....... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 24.12.2008 (Annexure-P-10), passed by the Labour Court-II, Faridabad, wherein the Labour Court has while exercising its powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act although holding therein that the order of termination is justified, reduced the same and then held the workman entitled to compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs as full and final settlement of his claim instead of reinstating him in service. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the allegations as made by the management, have not been proved against the petitioner-workman before the Labour Court, and therefore, the findings as recorded by the Labour Court, are not sustainable. He has referred to the statement of Shri Rajinder Mohan, M.W.1 to contend that only allegations of slow down by the petitioner-workman, had been made against the workman. He contends that there was already a settlement between the management and the union to the C.W.P. No. 5331 of 2009. effect that in case of slow down of work, proportionate payment would be made to the workers. He, therefore, contends at the most because of the slow down which has been alleged to have been resorted to by the petitioner- workman, the management could have cut his salary in the proportion to the extent the production had reduced. He further contends that while exercising its powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act after holding that the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate to the mis- conduct attributed to the petitioner-workman as instead of reinstating the petitioner-workman, the Labour Court has granted him merely compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs. He submits that the petitioner-workman was entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service. He further contends that even if in the given facts and circumstances the reinstatement of the workman was not possible then the compensation granted to him is meager as compared to the period of service he has put in i.e. 15 years. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. Perusal of statement of M.W.1 Rajinder Mohan would show that not only the allegation slowdown was made before the Labour Court but the allegation with regard to misbehaving with the Assistant General Manager (Production) and Shri A.S. Sharma, General Manager, is also attributed. It has further been stated that the petitioner-workman had when he was being photographed with an idle machine stated that he shall break the camera as well as Shri A.S. Sharma, who was taking photographs with his camera and further said that he will work as he would like to do. The statement of Shri A.S. Sharma M.W.-2, who was the General Manager at -2- C.W.P. No. 5331 of 2009. that time, also is to the same effect. On this basis, it cannot be said that the management has not been able to prove the allegations against workman. It is true that the Labour Court has while exercising its powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, has taken into consideration the long service which the workman has put in with the management, and therefore, has come to a conclusion that the punishment of dismissal from service was disproportionate to the mis-conduct attributed to him. Exercising its powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court has proceeded to grant the petitioner-workman total compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs in full and final settlement with regard to his entire claim instead of reinstating him in service. This in my considered view is fully justified for the reason that after having proved the mis-conduct of misbehaving with the superior officials and none else than the Assistant General Manager and General Manager, it would not be justified in putting a person back in the industry which would totally shatter the discipline which is of paramount importance in industry for smooth and proper working. The atmosphere will be polluted which would not be conducive to the peace and progress of the industry. In this view of the matter, non putting back of the petitioner- workman into service, is fully justified. The contention of counsel for the petitioner that the compensation granted to him is on the lower side for which he relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Aurofood Private Limited Versus S. Rajulu, 2008 (2) L.L.J. 1061, to contend that Hon'ble the Supreme Court has granted a compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs, and therefore, the amount of compensation should be enhanced. While laying down law under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, Hon'ble the Supreme Court -3- C.W.P. No. 5331 of 2009. only lays down the broad principles which have the effect of law, the amount of compensation is dependent on the facts and circumstances of the each case. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs awarded by the Labour Court is sufficient, which do not call for interference by this Court. Finding no illegality in the award passed by the Labour Court, the present writ petition stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE April 02, 2009. sjks. -4-