* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C.) No. 10425/2009 % Date of Decision: 27th July, 2009 # The MANAGEMENT OF MESSRS VISHAL UDYOG ..... PETITIONER ! Through: Mr. O.P. Narang, Advocate. VERSUS $ SHRI SATYABIR & OTHERS .....RESPONDENTS ^ Through: Mr. Rajiv Nanda for respondent No. 2. CORAM: Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL 1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NO S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) CM No. 9116/2009 (Exemption) in W.P.(C) No. 10425/2009 Exemption as prayed for is granted subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) No. 10425/2009 This writ petition filed by the management (the petitioner herein) is directed against an industrial award dated 29.05.2008 passed by Mr. Harish Dudani, POLC XVII, Delhi by which an amount of Rs.50,000/- each has been awarded to six out of ten workmen who had raised an industrial dispute with regard to their termination from the service of the management. These workmen are respondents No. 1-A to 1-G in this petition. 2 Heard. 3 Mr. O.P. Narang learned counsel appearing on behalf of the W.P.(C) No. 10425/2009 Page 1 of 2 management has argued that since the management has closed down its business, the management should not be burdened with any liability to pay any compensation to the respondents/workmen. 4 I have gone through the impugned award and have considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner because learned Industrial Adjudicator has given cogent reasons in the impugned award to hold that the termination of the workmen was illegal and unjustified. The court below has taken into account the inconsistent pleas taken by the management with regard to date of termination of the respondents/workmen and also about the letters dated 31.07.1995, 05.08.1995 & 25.09.1995 allegedly written by the management to the workmen. In the opinion of this Court the compensation of Rs.50,000/- awarded to each of the illegally terminated workmen by the Industrial Adjudicator by no means can be said to be unreasonable or excessive. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned award that may call for an interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5 This writ petition therefore fails and is hereby dismissed in limine. Stay application is also dismissed. JULY 27, 2009 S.N.AGGARWAL, J 'a' W.P.(C) No. 10425/2009 Page 2 of 2