* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 31. + LPA 993/2011 RAKESH KUMAR Appellant Through: Mr. H.K. Chaturvedi, Adv. versus MANAGEMENT OF BHAGININIVEDITA COLLEGE Respondent Through: None CORAM; % HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW ORDER % 30.11.2011 CM 21622/2011 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM 21621/2011 For the reasons stated in the application, delay in preferring the appeal stands condoned. The application is allowed. ^' LPA 993/2011 Services of the appellant were terminated way back in the year-1996. ] The termination is held to be bad only on technical grounds, that is, non- compliance of the mandatory provision of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For this reason, the Labour Court directed reinstatementwithoutbackwagesor in the alternateRs.70,000/-as lumpsum Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified compensation. Both, the appellant as well as the management challenged this order by filing writ petitions in this Court which are disposed of by commonjudgmentdated 25'^ August, 2011 renderedby the learnedSingle Judge of this Court. It is having regard to the fact that termination was effected way back in the year 1996 and it was purely on technical grounds, the learned Single Judge has maintained the compensation awarded by the Labour Court, more so when during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner was given benefit of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act and he got wages under this order. The relevant portion of the judgment of the learned Single Judge maintaining the aforesaid reads as under: "10. The question now is of the relief to be granted to the workman. As already mentioned since reinstatement need not be the relief invariably to be granted to a workman illegally terminated from service, a suitable lump sum compensation would satisfy the ends of justice. The Labour Court has already awarded the workman Rs. 60,000/- as lump sum compensation and Rs. 10,000 as litigation costs. If the workman is given the Section 17B wages, without any requirement by the workman to refund the same to the management, in addition to the above lump sum compensation it should be sufficient final relief to the workman. In the circumstances the impugned Award dated 7th October 2005 of the Labour Court is modified to the extent that in lieu of reinstatement the management will pay to the workman the entire Section 17B wages as directed by this Court by its order dated 15th March, 2011 i.e. the arrears of wages in terms of the order dated 15th March, 2011 and the wages payable till the date of this order in terms of Section 17B of the ID Act in addition to the lump sum compensation and litigation costs as awarded by the Labour Court. The sum of Rs. 70,000 deposited in this Court by the management will be paid to the workman by the Registry within a period of two weeks upon proper identification together with the interest accrued thereon." (P We do not find any infirmity in the aforesaid order. There is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed. NOVEMBER 30, 2011 pk ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAIENDLAW, J