Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 259 (DEL)

Arif Ali Khan v. State of Delhi

2007-02-07

KAILASH GAMBHIR

body2007
JUDGMENT: KAILASH GAMBHIR, J (ORAL) : Rule. 2. With the consent of the parties, matter is taken up for final disposal. 3. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the award of the Labour Court on the ground that neither the petitioner has been directed for reinstatement nor he has been awarded the full back wages. Counsel for the petitioner contends that a very meagre amount of Rs.35,000/- has been awarded in his favour towards compensation. Another contention which has been raised by counsel for the petitioner is that the compensation amount of Rs.35,000/- is merely in lieu of reinstatement and not against full back wages. He further contends that the back wages alone amounted to Rs.9,14,947/-. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent has drawn my attention to Para 9 of the impugned award which is the operative part whereby only an amount of Rs.35,000/- has been awarded in favour of the petitioner-workman in lieu of reinstatement and full back wages. It would be worthwhile to reproduce Para 9 of the award as under:- “9. Now question arises as to what relief should be granted to the workman. Ordinarily, a workman is entitled to full back wages and reinstatement after .termination is regarded illegal and unjust. But the latest trend of the Apex Court and Honble High Court is that lumpsum compensation is now the norm instead of reinstatement and full back wages. In the instant case, the litigation is pending for the last more than one decade and the workman worked as Master Cutter nearly nine months. In view of these circumstances, I feel that end of justice would be met if the workman is awarded lumpsum compensation of Rs.35,000/- in lieu of reinstatement with full back wages. The reference is answered accordingly.” 4. It would be manifest that in Para 9, the Tribunal has clearly held that lumpsum compensation is now the norm instead of reinstatement and full back wages which shows that the said amount of compensation has been awarded in favour of the workman against the claim of reinstatement and full back wages. However, in the last line of the said para instead of reinstatement and full back wages the expression has been used in lieu of reinstatement with full back wages. .5. However, in the last line of the said para instead of reinstatement and full back wages the expression has been used in lieu of reinstatement with full back wages. .5. I do not find any ambiguity in the said operative para of the impugned order as the Tribunal has clearly held that the compensation which is being awarded in favour of the workman is in lieu of his reinstatement with full back wages. Counsel for the respondent has further drawn my attention to the fact that after passing of the said award, although the petitioner has been claiming full back wages by misconstruing the said operative para of the award but yet he has accepted the said sum of Rs.35,000/- in full and final settlement of the award. The petitioner-workman has received Rs.30,000/- vide cheque No.351703 dated 03.07.2004 drawn on City Bank, Delhi and Rs.5,000/- in cash towards satisfaction of the award and settlement dated 08.7.2004 was duly signed by the petitioner as well as the management in this regard before the Office of the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Govt. of NCT of Delhi (South). A separate receipt acknowledging the receipt of the said amount of Rs.35,000/-has also been executed by the petitioner/workman vide receipt dated 08.07.2004, photocopy of which has been placed on record by the respondent at page 47 of the paper book. After having received the said amount of Rs.35,000/- in full and final satisfaction of the award, the petitioner cannot challenge the same award by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition filed by the petitioner is highly misconceived and deserves no indulgence. There is no force in the argument raised by counsel for the petitioner that full back wages of Rs.9,14,947/- was awarded in his favour when clearly the Tribunal had granted compensation of amount of Rs.35,000/- in lieu of reinstatement with full back wages. Moreover, this argument of the petitioner also cannot stand as he has already accepted Rs.35,000/- in full and final settlement of his award before the Office of the Labour Commissioner. Counsel for the petitioner has also contended that no reason has been given by the Tribunal for awarding the said meagre amount of compensation and for not granting full back wages. Counsel for the petitioner has also contended that no reason has been given by the Tribunal for awarding the said meagre amount of compensation and for not granting full back wages. All these pleas would have been available to the petitioner had he not accepted the said amount in full and final settlement of the award. These pleas are after thought and the same cannot be entertained after acceptance of the said amount in full and final satisfaction of the award. There is no merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed. 6. Rule discharged.