Executive Engineer, Construction Division, Uttaranchal Peyjal Nigam & Others vs Trilok Singh Rana & Others

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

This is employer’s petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the award dated 14.05.2012 rendered by learned Labour Court,

Dehradun in Adjudication Case No. 96 of 2009. By the said award, learned Labour Court declared termination of respondent no. 1 from service w.e.f.

31.08.1991 to be unjust & illegal and directed for re-instatement with payment of backwages from the date of passing of order of reference till his re-

instatement.

A perusal of the order of learned Labour Court reveals that respondent no. 1 had served for 240 days in a calendar year and petitioners’

counsel is also not disputing the said finding. Similarly, the finding recorded by learned Labour Court, regarding non-observance of the procedure given

in Section 6 N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, while terminating services of respondent no. 1, is also not questioned. Even otherwise also, these

are findings of fact, which cannot be interfered with while exercising power of superintendence under Article 227 of Constitution of India. Although,

there was delay on the part of respondent no. 1 in raising dispute, however, that question was dealt with by learned Labour Court and only 50% of

backwages was awarded on that count, that too from the date of order of reference till his re-instatement.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent no. 1 had served only for about two years in the establishment of the petitioner,

therefore, the direction to re-instate the respondent no. 1 with 50% backwages, though given only from the date of order of reference, would be

unjust.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Incharge Officer

and another Vs. Shankar Shetty, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 126, where Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that where a workman has worked for a

few years before his termination, then relief of re-instatement would not be proper and grant of monetary compensation would meet the ends of

justice. He, therefore, submits that petitioner is ready to pay a reasonable amount, as compensation, as is determined by this Court, and the award be

modified accordingly.

Having regard to the fact that respondent no. 1 was engaged as daily wager for about two years only, it appears to this Court that relief of re-

instatement cannot be said to be justified and, instead of re-instatement, monetary benefit would meet the ends of justice. In the considered opinion of

this Court, the compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/-, in lieu of re-instatement, would be appropriate, just & equitable.

Accordingly, the award is modified and it is provided that petitioners shall pay a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- to respondent no. 1, within four weeks from

today, failing which, the same shall carry interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum.

Registry is directed to release the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- deposited by the petitioners, in terms of order dated 08.10.2013, which is invested in a fixed

deposit scheme in a nationalized bank, in favour of the petitioners, within ten days from today.

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.