Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 520 (RAJ)

Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Nathu Singh

2018-02-14

ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

body2018
JUDGMENT : ASHOK KUMAR GAUR, J. 1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the employer-petitioner against award dated 31st July, 2017 passed by Labour Court No. 2, Jaipur. The Labour Court has found that workman-respondent was employed as orderly and order of termination dated 04th December, 1984 was illegal order. The Labour Court has granted a lump sum compensation of Rs. 50,000/- in place of reinstatement and in case, the said amount is not paid within three months, thereafter, it would carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-workman was engaged on 1st January, 1982 as orderly and he continued to work till 4th December, 1984. The dispute in respect of termination of his services was referred by the State Government to the Labour Court. The workman pleaded that he had completed 240 days before termination of his services, neither he was given notice nor the salary in lieu of notice and further alleged that no retrenchment compensation was also paid to him. The workman also alleged violation of Section 25(G) and (H) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 3. The claim of the workman was contested by the employer-petitioner and it was affirmed that workman was employed by Assistant Engineer as orderly and he was not paid his salary from the government fund. 4. The Labour Court after considering the evidence of both the parties came to the conclusion that the petitioner has rendered 240 days service before termination of his services and mandatory compliance of Section 25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act was not made. The Labour Court while considering the relief part, found that workman had worked long back and alleged date of termination was 1984 and as such, considering the law on the point, settled by the Apex Court, passed an award of granting compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner-employer submitted that the Labour Court has passed the impugned award on surmises and conjectures and further, the award of Rs. 50,000/- as lump sump compensation was not justified in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 6. 50,000/-. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner-employer submitted that the Labour Court has passed the impugned award on surmises and conjectures and further, the award of Rs. 50,000/- as lump sump compensation was not justified in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner on being asked about applicability of provision of Industrial Disputes Act on the respondent-workman, submitted that this Court has already settled the issue of status of orderly and as such, benefit of treating them regular employee cannot be given but nevertheless, they are workmen. 7. I have looked into the entire material and Court finds that the award passed by the Labour Court does not suffer from any legal infirmity and findings recorded by the Labour Court are based on material placed before it by both the parties. There is neither any perversity nor illegality in the finding recorded by the Labour Court. 8. The Court finds that once the retrenchment was found to be bad in eye of law, the Labour Court considering all aspects of the matter has rightly ordered payment of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and relief of reinstatement has been denied to respondent-workman. The award of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- even cannot be termed as exaggerated claim or on higher side considering the legal cannons, which are required to be applied while granting the compensation. The fact remains that respondent-workman had worked from 01.01.1982 to 04.12.1984 and in view of such fact, the adequate compensation has been awarded by the Labour Court. The learned counsel submitted that award of interest was not warranted in the present facts of the case, the Court finds that award of interest is only conditional and if payment of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- is not made within three months from the date of award, in such eventuality, the interest was to be required to be paid by the employer. 9. The Court does not find any force in the writ petition, the same is dismissed.