Sh.Chand Ram vs The Management of MCD and Another

V.K. Shali, J.—The Petitioner in the present writ petition has challenged the award of the learned Labour Court dated 08.4.2004 passed in ID No. 714/1998, by virtue of which the learned Labour Court in spite of directing the reinstatement of the Petitioner /workman has exercised the discretion and granting a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the workman.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has mainly contended that the learned Labour Court has grossly erred in not granting the benefit of reinstatement to the Petitioner on the wrong assumption that there is a gap of seven years from the date of the termination to the date on which the learned Labour Court passed the award. It was contended that delay of seven years was not attributable to the Petitioner and therefore, the said delay could not be held against the Petitioner. The learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No. 4368/2000, wherein in a similar situation, the learned Single Judge of this Court has directed the reinstatement in lieu of the compensation on the ground that the delay in passing the award not attributable to the Petitioner in the said case could be ground for denying reinstatement. It was observed in the said judgment that in the first instance, the learned Labour Court ought to have considered the relief of reinstatement qua the Petitioner in the said case.

Per contra, the learned Counsel for the Respondent has contended that merely because the termination of a workman is held to be illegal and unjustifiable that would not ipso facto result in reinstatement of the workman and there are number of factors including the delay in passing the award, the period of time spent by the workman with the Respondent/Organization, the factum as to whether he remained employed when the matter was pending before the industrial adjudicator and the discretion which the learned Labour Court must exercise on principles of equity, justice and a fair play to see as to what direction ought to be given in the fact situation of each case, whether it should be reinstated with or without payment of back wages or it should be one time lump sum compensation.

For the purpose of this, the learned Counsel has cited number of authorities of the Supreme Court namely Employers, Management of Central P and D Inst. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, , Rolston John Vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and others, , State of Punjab and Others Vs. Des Bandhu, , Haryana Tourism Corporation Ltd. Vs. Fakir Chand, etc. etc., , Madhya Pradesh Administration Vs. Tribhuban, and Mahboob Deepak Vs. Nagar Panchayat Gajraula and Another, . The Apex Court in the above authorities has unequivocally held that the reinstatement as a relief u/s 11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not to be granted ipso facto on account of the termination order being held to be bad or illegal.

I have carefully considered the submissions of the respective sides and perused the record.

I find myself in full agreement with the submission of the learned Counsel for the Respondent that merely because the termination has been held to be illegal or unjustified would not result in necessary consequence of the Petitioner or workman being reinstated back into service. The industrial adjudicator has been given ample power to be exercise discretion on the basis of facts and circumstances of each case and to come to a finding as to whether reinstatement is to be ordered or whether the compensation in lieu thereof has to be given. While exercising this discretion, the learned Labour Court is expected to take various factors into consideration which absolutely cannot be laid down in a straight jacket formula but certainly while exercising such a discretion, the period which the workman has spent with the Respondent/workman, the total emoluments, the allegations on account of which his services were originally terminated, the period and the date on which his services were terminated and the amount and time which was consumed in passing the award, and if there is delay who was responsible for the delay, the question as to whether the reinstatement of the Petitioner /workman would destroy the industrial peace in the Organization where the reinstatement is granted have to be considered.

Keeping in view all these broad parameters, this is essentially a matter of discretion which has to be exercised by the learned Labour Court itself u/s 11A of the Act. It is also settled legal position that the Writ Court being superior cannot substitute its own discretion even if it wants to exercise the same in a manner which is contrary to the discretion exercised with the learned Labour Court.

Keeping in view these broad parameters, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Labour Court below in not specifically granting benefit of reinstatement to the Petitioner /workman. The Petitioner /workman may be right that he himself may not be solely responsible for the delay in disposal of the matter before the learned Labour Court but that is not to say sole consideration why he should be directed to be reinstated the factum that he has served with the Respondent /Organization only a period of 240 days is not sufficient enough to warrant the direction that he should be reinstated he has been sufficiently compensated by the learned Labour Court by granting a just, fair and reasonable one time lump sum compensation of Rs. 50,000/-.

I, accordingly, find no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly, dismissed. However, a direction is given to the Respondent to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs. 50,000/- as ordered in the impugned order by the learned Labour Court within four weeks from today, failing which it shall carry further interest @ 7% p.a. till the time the amount is actually paid to the Petitioner.

With these directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.