C.W.P.No.2990 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.2990 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 14.05.2009 Avtar Singh ....Petitioner(s) vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jalandhar and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.M.S.Bedi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.K.D.Sachdeva, DAG, Punjab, for respondents No.2 and 3. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) In the present writ petition, the petitioner-workman is challenging the award dated 3.10.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Labour Court, Jalandhar, to the limited extent whereby it has been held that the termination of the workman is not in consonance with the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and granted him compensation in lieu of reinstatement as he had crossed the age of superannuation. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Labour Court having come to a finding that the appointment of the workman was made as per the statutory rules governing the service and after holding a proper interview and selection and further coming to a conclusion that the his C.W.P.No.2990 of 2009 -2- termination from service was not in consonance with the Rules governing the service as the principles of natural justice had not been complied with, has granted only a compensation of Rs.20,000/- whereas the workman if would have not been terminated illegally in the year 1986, would have continued to serve the Management till the year 2008. He contends that the workman has been deprived of long service because of the fault of the Management and although he cannot now be reinstated because of his attaining the age of superannuation, and has been held entitled to a very meager compensation for the illegal termination meted out to the petitioner by the Management, i.e. only Rs.20,000/- has been awarded to the workman and, thus, the same deserves to be enhanced. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent submits that the workman has not come to the Court with clean hands although he has disclosed that the Management had preferred Civil Writ Petition No.341 of 1994 challenging the ex parte award passed by the Labour Court against it which was allowed in favour of the Management after setting aside the ex- parte award and the case was remanded to the Labour Court to be decided on merits but had failed to disclose therein that he had been paid an amount of Rs.1,05,634/- as per the provisions contained under Section 17-B of the Act which should also be taken into consideration while granting the compensation to the workman. He submits that the workman has tried to over-awe the Court and to gain undue sympathy by not disclosing these payments received by him. He, in any case, submits that the amount of compensation as granted by the Labour Court amounting to Rs.20,000/- when taken along with amount of Rs.1,05,634/- granted to the workman becomes a substantial amount which is appropriate, even if not enhanced, C.W.P.No.2990 of 2009 -3- would justify the award of the Labour Court. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The appointment of the workman was in accordance with the statutory rules governing the same as he was appointed against a regular post after holding an interview and going through the selection process. The assertion of the Management is that the workman had absented himself from the duty whereas that of the workman is that he had proceeded on leave, whereafter he was not allowed to join the duties. The Labour Court on consideration of the facts of the case and the evidence led by the parties has come to a conclusion that the services of the workman could not have been terminated without serving a charge-sheet or giving an opportunity to the workman to defend himself. It is not in dispute that no enquiry was held nor any charge-sheet was served on the workman nor any notice was issued to the workman which would show that he had indeed abandoned the service. Therefore, the findings as recorded by the Labour Court with regard to the illegal termination of his services are fully justified. It is also not in dispute that had the order of termination not been passed against the workman, he would have continued to serve the Management till the date of his superannuation unless some other misfortune or misconduct would have come in his way in completing the said period of his service. In the present facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the nature of service which the workman was performing and further keeping in view the amount of last wages as per the provisions contained under Section 17-B of the Act having been paid to him i.e. Rs.1,05,634/- it would be just and appropriate that the workman should be held entitled to compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. This amount of Rs.1,50,000/- shall include C.W.P.No.2990 of 2009 -4- Rs.1,05,634/- which has already been paid to him. The enhancement as has been granted to the workman is being done keeping in view the principles culled out by this Court in C.W.P.No.3066 of 1989 decided on 18.12.2008 in the case of Gulzara Singh vs. The Jullan Coop.Agri.Service Society Ltd., (Annexure P-2). Consequently, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Management to release the amount of Rs.44,566/- within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It is made clear that the amount of Rs.20,000/- as granted by the Labour Court stands included in the amount of compensation as assessed by this Court. May 14, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE Whether referred to Reporters ________ Yes/No