Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1317 (RAJ)

Brijendra v. State of Raj.

2016-09-08

BANWARI LAL SHARMA, K.S.JHAVERI

body2016
JUDGMENT : Notice was issued on 1.8.2016 for final disposal only for this issue which reads as under:- "Counsel submits that the ld. Single Judge under order impugned has quantified the amount of compensation to be paid in lieu of reinstatement and the appellant-workman has no grievance as regards the amount quantified as compensation in lieu of reinstatement but the amount payable u/Sec. 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as settled by the Apex Court, is not adjustable against the amount of compensation quantified and payable to the appellant-workman in lieu of reinstatement." 2. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition committed serious error in directing lump sum 2 lacs against the reinstatement and 30% back wages and also given direction to adjust payment of Rs.19,888/- plus Rs.572/- amount in the last paragraph to be adjusted from this lump sum compensation which was to be paid to the appellant every month. 3. He contended that benefit which has been granted under 17B is statutory right allowed to be given to the employee pending the petition when the award of the Industrial Labour Court is stayed and same cannot be adjusted against his future claim in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. 4. Counsel for the respondent contended that view taken by the learned Single Judge is just and proper and the lump sum which is to be paid is from the date of award, therefore, amount which has been paid under 17B is required to be adjusted and no interference is called for. 5. In view of the order dated 1.8.2016, the matter was heard finally and after hearing both the sides, we are of the opinion that contentions raised by the appellant-employee regarding Section 17B is statutory right which is given pending the petition and lump sum compensation which was granted in lieu of reinstatement and 30% back wages is future right. Therefore, learned Single Judge has committed serious error in adjusting payment made under 17B against the lump sum compensation. 6. In our view, direction issued by the learned Single Judge to make payment of lump sum two lacs against reinstatement adjusting amount of Rs.19,888/- and Rs.572/- which has already paid pursuant to the order of this court dated 27th May 2003 on the application under 17B is required to be modified. 7. 6. In our view, direction issued by the learned Single Judge to make payment of lump sum two lacs against reinstatement adjusting amount of Rs.19,888/- and Rs.572/- which has already paid pursuant to the order of this court dated 27th May 2003 on the application under 17B is required to be modified. 7. The respondent-employer would ensure lump sum compensation without adjusting any amount under 17B within two months from the date a copy of this order is served on them, failing which amount due shall carry interest @ 12% per annum after two months i.e. from 8th November, 2016. 8. The appeal stands allowed. No order as to costs.