Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 2336 (RAJ)

Shakuntla v. Vikas Adhikari

2021-12-15

REKHA BORANA

body2021
ORDER 1. The present Writ Petition has been filed against the award dated 29.12.2021 passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur, wherein the Labour Court had reached to a specific finding that retrenchment of the employee was invalid but as the workman had expired during the pendency of the proceedings, the Labour Court proceeded on to grant a lump sum amount of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand) as compensation in lieu of reinstatement. The said amount was to be coupled with interest @ 6% p.a. from the period of 01.12.1990 to 31.12.2017 and further @ 9% per annum from 01.01.2018 the date till the date of payment if not paid within a period of two months. 2. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that the amount of compensation as awarded by the Labour Court is a meagre amount keeping in consideration the number of dependents of the deceased employee. Counsel for the petitioner further argued that the delay in preferring the claim and reference thereof to the Labour Court would not be of much relevance as the Statute does not provide for any limitation for filing the claims. 3. In support of his submissions, Counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kuldeep Singh Vs. G.M. Instrument Design Development and Facilities Centre & Anr.: (2011 DNJ (SC) 266) and judgment of this Court passed in Resident Engineer, Rajasthan State Road Development Construction Corporation Ltd. Deoli District Tonk, Hq Kota. Vs. Judge Labour Court-2 Jaipur and Anr.: 7017 (3) DNJ (Raj.) 1135. 4. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ram Manohar Lohia Joint Hospital and ors. Vs. Munna Prasad Saini and Anr. (Civil Appeal No.5810/2021), decided on 20.09.2021, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court proceeded on to award a lump sum amount of compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement. 5. Per contra, counsel for the respondent has argued that in the present matter, the petitioner had worked for a short period of six months only and the date of retrenchment also pertains way back to the year 1990. After the date of retrenchment, the reference has been made after a period of more than 10 years which is fatal. 6. Per contra, counsel for the respondent has argued that in the present matter, the petitioner had worked for a short period of six months only and the date of retrenchment also pertains way back to the year 1990. After the date of retrenchment, the reference has been made after a period of more than 10 years which is fatal. 6. Counsel further argued that keeping in consideration the delay and the tenure for which the workman had worked, the Labour Court awarded the compensation of Rs. 50,000/- which is perfectly valid and logical in the present matter. It has also been argued that generally in the award of the Labour Court wherein the lump sum compensation is granted, no interest is granted but in the present matter the compensation is coupled with the interest too and therefore, it suffice the purpose and the same does not deserve to be enhanced. 7. Counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Technical Education Sanstha, Nagpur Vs. Prashant Manikrao Kubitkar: [(2019) 12 SCC 294] and a judgment of this Court in The Director, Tiger Project, Sariska, District Alwar Vs. Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal, Alwar and Anr. and other connected matters: (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.406/2018, decided on 31.07.2018). 8. Heard the parties and perused the material on record. 9. It is clear on record that the workman had worked in total for a period of 10 months with the Department and his services was retrenched in the year 1990. Although, it has been argued by the counsel for the respondent that the reference was made after a period of 10 years, it is clear from the record that first the matter went up for conciliation proceedings in the year 1998 and on the failure of the same, the reference was made to the Labour Court. So it can be concluded that the dispute was live and the same was pursued by the workman. 10. So far as compensation part is concerned, the Labour Court has granted Rs.50,000/- as a lump sum amount which this Court, in view of the judgment cited by the counsel for the petitioner, deems appropriate to enhance. The lump sum amount of Rs.50,000/- as awarded by the Labour Court is enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000/- keeping in view the number of the dependents of the deceased employee. The lump sum amount of Rs.50,000/- as awarded by the Labour Court is enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000/- keeping in view the number of the dependents of the deceased employee. The enhanced amount would carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the award till the day of payment. 11. It is directed that the Legal Representatives of the deceased-employee (petitioner) would provide the Bank Account details in which the compensation amount is to be deposited within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order to the respondent authority. 12. The Department is directed to deposit the amount of compensation amount within a period of two months thereafter. 13. With these observations, the present Writ Petition is disposed of.