AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H. Billappa, J.—In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question, the award dated 1.12.2006, passed by the Addl. Labour Court, Hubli, in Ref. No. 54/1998 vide Annexure-''A''. By the impugned award at Annexure-''A'', the Labour Court has allowed the reference in part and has directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent into service within two months, without back-wages and continuity of service.
Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
Briefly stated the facts are:
The respondent claims that he was working as a daily wager from 1983 to 1985. He was removed from service on 20.12.1985 without complying with the provisions of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, a dispute was raised in Ref. No. 54/1998 before the Addl. Labour Court, Hubli. The Labour Court by its award dated 21.3.2000 has set-aside the termination and the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent into service, without back-wages. It was challenged in W.P. No. 31545/2000. The writ petition was allowed directing the respondent to implead the petitioner as party and dispose, of the matter. Thereafter, the impugned award has beer, passed directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent into service without back-wages and continuity of service. Therefore, this writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned award cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the reference was made in the year 1998 after the lapse of more than 12 years and therefore, the claim was state and not maintainable in law. Further he submitted that the respondent was not appointed against any sanctioned post and therefore, the direction to reinstate the respondent into service is illegal and without authority of law. He also submitted that there was delay of more than 12 years and therefore, the petitioner was not in a position to produce the documents. Further he submitted that the delay of 12 years is not explained and therefore, the Labour Court was not justified in directing reinstatement. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following decisions:
(2011)1 SCC (L and S) 524
Haryana State Co-Op. Land Development Bank Vs. Neelam,
The Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Vs. K.P. Madhavankutty and Others,
In the alternative, placing reliance on the following decisions, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that instead of reinstatement, reasonable compensation should have been awarded.
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Man Singh,
2006 SCC (LandS) 676
Nagar Mahapalika (Now Municipal Corpn.) Vs. State of U.P. and Others,
State of U.P. Vs. Neeraj Awasthi and Others,
He, therefore, submitted that the impugned award cannot be sustained in law.
As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the impugned award does not call for interference. He also submitted that the Labour Court considering the material on record particularly exhibits W1 to W12, has held that the removal of the petitioner was contrary to section 25F of the I.D. Act and therefore, has directed reinstatement of the respondent and it does not call for interference. He also submitted that taking into consideration that the matter is going on for years, if reasonable compensation is awarded, that would meet the ends of justice.
I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
The point that arises for my consideration is, Whether the impugned award calls for interference?
It is relevant to note, the respondent was working as a daily-wager. He contends that he was removed from service on 20.12.1985 without complying section 25 of the I.D. Act. The petitioner contends that the respondent was not appointed against any sanctioned post and the dispute is raised after the lapse of more than 12 years and therefore, the dispute has become stale.
The petitioner has examined himself as WW1 and produced exhibits W1 to W13. On behalf of the petitioner, MW1 has been examined and no documentary evidence has been produced. The Labour Court considering the material on record particularly exhibits W1 to W13 and the admission of MW1 has held that the respondent has worked as a daily wager for more than 240 days. The Labour Court has observed that it is not clear whether the respondent was employed for short period or on permanent basis. The respondent himself has stated that he was working as a daily wager. The fact remains that the respondent has worked as daily wager. No doubt, exhibits W1 to W13 were copies of the documents, but they have been admitted by MW1. Therefore, the Labour Court was justified in placing reliance on exhibits W1 to W13. The finding recorded by the Labour Court does not call for interference. There is delay in raising the dispute. But, the fact remains that the respondent has worked as daily wager and he has been removed from service in violation of section 25F of the I.D. Act. Keeping in view that the respondent was working as a daily wager and there is delay in raising the dispute, the Labour Court was not justified in directing reinstatement. In such cases, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has awarded compensation instead of reinstatement. Therefore, it is appropriate to award reasonable compensation instead of reinstatement. In the circumstances of the case, a sum of Rs. 30,000/- would be a reasonable compensation.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned award passed by the Labour Court vide Annexure-''A'' directing reinstatement is hereby set aside and the impugned award is modified directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- to the respondent by way of compensation, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.