Arun Kumar Chaturvedi v. The Management of M/s Punja Distributors (p) Ltd

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. Oral: *

1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the impugned award dated 27.07.2006 whereby the Ld. Labour Court while answering the reference in favour of the petitioner workman has granted an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation.

2. Brief facts as set out by the petitioner relevant for 2010:DHC:1270 deciding the present petition are that the petitioner workman joined the respondent management as an Assistant Accountant in 1993 on a monthly salary of Rs.1700/- and when he demanded legal facilities such as salary on the basis of the Minimum Wages Act, double over time bonus etc. the respondent management got annoyed and his services were terminated on 22.01.1998. It is alleged by the petitioner workman that the respondent management called the petitioner to its premises on 9.2.1998 on the pretence of finalizing the accounts and under the threat of some goonda elements obtained his signatures on various blank vouchers, blank papers, registers etc. Thereafter, a demand notice dated 10.02.1998 was sent by the petitioner to the respondent management and the petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute before the Labour Court and an ex-parte award was passed on 17.7.2000 where the petitioner was granted full back wages and continuity of service. On filing of application by the respondent management, the ex-parte award was set aside vide order dated 15.12.2001 and further after the claim was contested by the management, the labour court vide order dated 27.7.2006 answered the reference in favour of the petitioner and granted retrenchment compensation of Rs.20,000/- in lieu of back wages, continuity of services and all other benefits. Feeling aggrieved with the meagre amount of compensation the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working with the respondent management on the post of Assistant Accountant-cum-General Worker since January, 1993 on a monthly salary of Rs.1700/- and his services were illegally terminated by the respondent management when he was not allowed to join his duties on 22.01.1998. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the ld. Labour Court did not accept the defence taken by the respondent management that the petitioner had himself abandoned the said job. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner workman successfully proved before the Labour Court that his services were illegally terminated by the respondent management and that once the Labour Court found that the termination of the petitioner was illegal then normally his reinstatement with full back wages should have been allowed but instead the Ld. Labour Court granted a meagre amount of Rs.20,000/- that too without any basis. Counsel further submits that even the minimum wages for the said job of the petitioner is much more and if such wages are taken into consideration, the compensation amount would be much higher than the amount granted by the Ld. Labour Court.

4. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner.

5. The petitioner was taken in the employment of the respondent on the post of an Assistant Accountant cum General Worker in the year 1993 and he remained in service for almost a period of five years when he was illegally terminated from his job. Even as per the case proved on record, the petitioner was drawing a salary of Rs.1700/- per month and even if the said salary is taken into consideration than the award of Rs.20,000/- as compensation is nowhere near to the grant of amount of full back wages. Ordinarily, this court would not have interfered in the discretionary powers exercised by the ld. Labour Court while awarding the compensation of Rs.20,000/- in favour of the petitioner workman but since no basis has been given by the Ld. Labour Court in arriving at the said figure of Rs.20,000/- and also the fact that the said compensation amount is much on the lower side, therefore I am of the view that the interest of justice in the given facts of the case would be best served if the said compensation of Rs.20,000/- is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-. The full back wages even if calculated @ Rs.1700/- per month from the date of the termination till the date of the impugned award would come to Rs.1,73,400/- and therefore, I feel that the grant of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of the petitioner would serve the ends of justice.

6. In the light of the above discussion, the impugned award is modified to the limited extent of enhancing the compensation amount of Rs.20,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-. Let the said amount of compensation be paid by the respondent within a period of one month from the date of this order failing which the respondent shall be liable to pay the said amount of compensation with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order till the final realization of the amount. March 03, 2010 KAILASH GAMBHIR,J pkv