M.K. Plastic vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others

Manmohan, J.

CM 12966/2009

For the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

Accordingly, application stands disposed of.

LPA 465/2009 & CM 12964/2009

Present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 4th May, 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the appellant''s writ petition being W.P.(C) 23748/2005 has been dismissed. It is pertinent to mention that the appellant had filed the writ petition impugning the Labour Court''s award dated 9th July, 2004 wherein the Labour Court, after holding that the services of respondents-workmen had been terminated illegally and unjustifiably, had instead of granting reinstatement and payment of full back wages, awarded compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- to each of the respondent-workman.

The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition has observed as under:

The learned Labour Court after analysis of the evidence has held there is a relationship of employee and employer between the parties and the fact that their services have been terminated illegally and unjustifiably by the petitioner/management without compliance of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On the question of relief which is to be given to the respondents/workmen, the learned Labour Court has arrived at a finding of a fact that this is not a fit case where a direction should be given for reinstatement and payment of full back wages. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner have rendered a long length of service with the petitioner, therefore, an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- be paid to each of the workman as a onetime compensation in lieu of reinstatement or the payment of full back wages.

The law regarding grant of relief on account of holding the termination as illegal and unjustifiable is very well settled. The Supreme Court in catena of cases has laid down that once the termination is held to be illegal and unjustifiable it does not ipso facto result in passing an order of reinstatement. The learned Labour Court has still the discretion to direct the payment of compensation in lieu thereof. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the following authorities:

Rajasthan Lalit Kala Academy Vs. Radhey Shyam,

While calculating the compensation to be paid in lieu of reinstatement by the workman various factors which are not enumerated, have been taken on account. These factors are the number of years of service put in by the employee, the amount of wages drawn by him, the kind of work which he has done and the possibility of getting alternative employment. Once these factors are taken into account, the learned Labour Court can also fix the compensation which has been done in the instant case by fixing a uniform compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/-. There is absolutely no justification of tempering with the said quantum of compensation because this Court sits as a superior Court. The respondents/workmen have rendered fairly a long length of service and has still long way to go which has been cut short by the illegal termination, therefore, even the quantum of compensation in my view does not warrant any interference. In Apparel Export Promotion Council Vs. A.K. Chopra, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has laid down the scope of judicial review in following words:

Judicial review, not being an appeal from a decision, but a review of the manner in which the decision was arrived at, the court, while exercising the power of judicial review, must remain conscious of the fact that if the decision has been arrived at by the administrative authority after following the principles established by law and the rules of natural justice and the individual has received a fair treatment to meet the case against him, the court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the administrative authority on a matter which fell squarely within the sphere of jurisdiction of that authority.

For the forgoing reasons, the writ petition is without any merit and the same is dismissed.

Mr. Pradeep Kumar Arya, Learned Counsel for appellant submitted that the impugned order is a non-speaking, illegal and unsustainable order. He further submitted that there was no evidence to prove the relationship of master and servant between appellant firm and respondents-workmen. He also pointed out that the litigation has been pending for nearly twenty years and in the meantime, the establishment had closed down. He lastly stated that the proprietor of the appellant firm being an old lady was incapable of paying any compensation.

Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the paper book, we find that the impugned order is a reasoned order. There is also enough evidence on record to show that there was an employer and employee relationship between the appellant and respondent Nos. 2 to 5. In fact, there is a Labour Inspector''s report to this effect.

However, keeping in view the fact that respondent Nos. 2 to 5 have worked for 9 to 12 years and appellant-firm''s proprietor is an old lady, we are of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if full and final compensation awarded to each of the respondents-workmen is reduced to Rs. 2,00,000/- instead of Rs. 2,50,000/-. With the aforesaid modification in the impugned judgment, the present appeal and application stand disposed of.