Case: Jayant Dhirajlal Kachalia Vs. Dowells Electro Works

( 2 ) THE appellant herein was appointed as a commercial artist in the respondent No. 1 firm on November 8, 1976. His services came to be terminated on August 6, 1981, consequent to which industrial dispute was sought to be raised and under reference order dated March 6, 1982 the matter was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute. The Labour Court by its award dated January 2, 1995 held that the termination of services of the appellant was illegal and ordered reinstatement without any backwages. The award was sought to be challenged by the respondent No. 1, while the appellant also filed counter petition to claim backwages. While the appellants petition was dismissed in limine on July 17, 1991, the learned single Judge allowed the petition filed by the respondent No. 1 by the impugned judgment dated September 4, 1997 and substituted the relief of reinstatement by awarding compensation in lieu thereof to the extent of Rs.

Court's reasoning:
The circumstances disc lose that after January, 1981 the respondent no. 1 could not provide continuous work to the appellant and even after termination of the services, there was no possibility of availing continuous work for the appellant with the respondent No. 1 of the nature for which he was initially employed with the respondent No. 1. Taking into consideration the wages which were drawn by the appellant and applying the criteria of O. P. Bhandari v. Indian Tourism development Corporation Ltd. (supra) as well as in Workmen v. Bharat Fritz Werner (P) Ltd. (supra), in our considered opinion, the compensation of Rs. 50,000/awarded in lieu of reinstatement to the appellant cannot be said to be either unreasonable or unjust. In fact, in the circumstances of the case it is quite reasonable and just compensation awarded to the appellant in lieu of reinstatement.