Rajesh Kumar v. Govardhan Lal Trehan Saraswatibalmandir

1. This hearing has been donethrough hybrid mode.

2. This matter has been taken up today as 18^ October, 2021 was declared holiday.

3. The present petition has been filed challenging the impugned Award dated6^December,2018 passed by thePresiding Officer,LabourCourt.

4. The Petitioner was working as a driver with the Respondent-School from 28th January,2009,and his services were terminated by the School on 1®'Januaiy,2011.

5. Vide the impugned Award, the termination was held to be illegal. However, lump sum compensation of Rs.85,000/- was awarded in lieu of reinstatement and backwages. The operative portion ofthe award reads as under: W.P.(C)11855/2019 Page[1] of[3] 2021:DHC:4444 % '''Now coming to the case in hand, it be seen that the services of the workman/claimant has been terminated illegally and unjustifiably by the management. Much time has elapsedsince date of his termination, hence, it cannot bepresumed that he wouldremain idleforsuch alongperiod. Thus, in such circumstances. I deem it appropriate to srant lump sum compensation to the workman/claimant instead of his reinstatement. Accordinslv, I srant a compensation of Rs.85.000/-(RupeesEishtyFive Thousandonly)to the workman/claimant instead ofhis reinstatement and back wases. considerins the tenure of his service,damagesfor delayandresultantlitigation. The amount ofcompensation shall be paid to the workman/claimant within one monthfrom the date when this award becomes enforceable failing which the amount shall carry an interest @ 9% p.a.from the date it becomes due till the time it is realized."

6. The Workman has challenged this Award, granting lump sum compensation before this Court on the ground that once the termination was held to be illegal,reinstatementoughtto have been directed.

7. Admittedly,the Management has not challenged the Award and thus, the findings in respect ofillegal termination have attained finality. The only question remains is ofthe amountofcompensation.

8. Today, Id. Counsel for the Workman, along with the Workman in person and Id. Counsel for the Management have appeared and made submissions.

9. After hearing Id. Counsels for the parties, the Workman, who is present in Court is agreeable to accept a sum ofRs.1,50,000/- as lump sum compensation, including the litigation expenses, provided the same is paid W.P. (C)11855/2019 Page2of[3] on or before November, 2021. This amount is acceptable to the Management-School.

10. Considering the consensus and settlement arrived at between the parties,thefollowing directions are issued: (1)The Respondent- School shall pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, by way of demand draft to the Petitioner/Workman on or before 1®^ November,2021. The said demand draft shall be handed over by Id. Counsel for the Respondent to Mr. Rai, Id. Counsel for the Workman. (2)Upon receipt of the said demand draft and encashment of the same,the disputes between the parties shall stand settled flilly and finally, and the Workman will have no further outstanding claims againstthe Respondent-School. (3)Ifthere are any statutory PF dues for the period when the Workman had rendered services to the Respondent School, the same shall be liable to be paid in addition to the settlementamountagreed herein.

11. The present petition is disposed ofas settled,in the above terms.

OCTOBER 21,2021W^A: PRATfflBA M.SEVGH,J. W.P.(C)11855/2019 Page3of[3]