Param Sukh vs Gram Panchayat Urmed and Others

Instant intra-court appeal has been preferred against order of the ld. Single Judge dt. 26/08/2011.

The brief facts culled out from the record are that the appellant-workman served the respondent-employer as Class IV since August, 1988 and as alleged by him, without any justification, his services were dispensed with w.e.f. 14/01/1993 and finally the industrial dispute was referred by the Appropriate Government for adjudication vide its notification dt. 14/02/2003. Pursuant thereto, statement of claim was filed by the appellant-workman and after the written statement was filed by the employer and after adjudication of the dispute, the Labour Court finally answered the reference vide its award dt. 19/04/2005 holding the termination of the appellant-workman w.e.f. 14/01/1993 to be void and in violation of Sec. 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and held him entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service alongwith 30% of back wages and that came to be challenged by the respondents in a writ petition before the ld. Single judge. However, the ld. Single Judge confirmed the fact that the workman had worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months of alleged termination and finding of being in violation of Sec. 25-F of the Act, 1947 and in logical corollary, the workman was to be reinstated in service with back wages. However, the ld. Single Judge, taking note of the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Incharge Officer and Another Vs. Shankar Shetty, , while confirming the finding of the Labour Court with regard to violation of Sec. 25-F of the Act, 1947, considered it appropriate to modify the award of the Labour Court dt. 19/04/2005 and directed the respondents to pay lump-sum compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the appellant-workman in lieu of reinstatement.

It is brought to our notice that pending litigation, the appellant-workman has crossed the age of superannuation.

Counsel for the appellant-workman submits that while awarding compensation in lieu of reinstatement, the ld. Single Judge has not taken into consideration the facts & circumstances of the instant case and of Incharge Officer Vs. Shankar Shetty (supra) on which reliance was placed and submits that the Hon''ble Apex Court in its later judgment rendered in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Bhuramal: (2014) 7 SC-C 177 wherein the workman had worked for two years, the Apex Court was of the view that the workman deserves to be entitled at least a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement.

Counsel for the appellant-workman further submits that in the instant case, the appellant-workman had worked from August, 1988 to October, 1992 which is more that four years and he at least deserves indulgence to grant compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement.

Counsel for the respondents submits that each case has to be looked into on its own facts and the present appellant-workman had worked on part time basis and is not entitled for compensation as claimed and the ld. Single Judge, in facts and circumstances of the case, has awarded adequate compensation which does not call for interference by this Court.

We find from the order of the ld. Single Judge that there is no discussion in regard to the facts as to how the ld. Single Judge has arrived to a conclusion in awarding adequate compensation to be paid to the appellant-workman in lieu of reinstatement and we find that the judgment in the case of Incharge Officer Vs. Shankar Shetty (supra) which has been relied upon by the ld. Single Judge, has been considered by the Apex Court in its later judgment in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Bhuramal (supra) where the evidence has come on record that the workman had worked for almost two years and taking note thereof, the Apex Court in the facts on hand, considered to award compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement by holding ad-infra:-

"In Man Singh which was also a case of BSNL, this Court had granted compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs to each of the workmen when they had worked for merely 240 days. Since the respondent herein worked for longer period, we are of the view that he should be paid a compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs. This compensation should be paid within 2 months failing which the respondent shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of this judgment. The award of CGIT is modified to this extent. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. The respondent shall also be entitled to the costs of Rs. 15,000 (Rupees fifteen thousand only) in this appeal."

In the instant case indisputably, the appellant-workman had worked as daily wages & not as a part time worker claimed by the respondents from August, 1988 to October, 1992 and litigating since then and the award came to be passed by the Labour Court on 19/04/2005 holding the termination to be in violation of Sec. 25-F of the Act, 1947 & for reinstatement with continuity of service alongwith 30% of back wages which came to be challenged in the writ petition and taking into consideration the facts which has come on record and keeping in view what the view of the Apex Court in its later judgment rendered in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Bhuramal (supra), we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the appellant-workman deserves indulgence to be awarded compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement.

Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The order of the ld. Single Judgment impugned herein dt. 26/08/2011 and the award passed by the Labour Court dt. 19/04/2005 is hereby modified to the extent that in lieu of reinstatement, the appellant-workman is awarded compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-.

Since the appellant-workman is litigating for long time, we consider it appropriate to direct the respondents to comply with this order within two months, failing which the compensation awarded by this Court, referred to supra, shall carry further interest @ 9% per annum until actual payment.

If the order of this Court is not complied with, we grant liberty to the appellant-workman to file misc. application for initiating appropriate proceedings available under the law in the present matter itself.