JAYANT DHIRAJLAL KACHALIA Vs. DOWELLS ELECTRO WORKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short point which arises for consideration in the matter is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the award of compensation in lieu of reinstatement and further limiting it to Rs. 50,000/- is justified.

(2.) The appellant herein was appointed as a commercial artist in the respondent No. 1 firm on November 8, 1976. His services came to be terminated on August 6, 1981, consequent to which industrial dispute was sought to be raised and under reference order dated March 6, 1982 the matter was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute. The Labour Court by its award dated January 2, 1995 held that the termination of services of the appellant was illegal and ordered reinstatement without any backwages. The award was sought to be challenged by the respondent No. 1, while the appellant also filed counter petition to claim backwages. While the appellant's petition was dismissed in limine on July 17, 1991, the learned single Judge allowed the petition filed by the respondent No. 1 by the impugned judgment dated September 4, 1997 and substituted the relief of reinstatement by awarding compensation in lieu thereof to the extent of Rs. 50,000/ -. Hence, the present appeal.

(3.) While challenging the impugned judgment, the learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the Learned single judge failed to take into consideration the fact that the appellant had clearly established through the testimony of Harish Kumar, one of the employees of the respondent No. 1 itself that there was sufficient work available with the respondent No. 1 for reinstatement of the appellant and that therefore there was no reason for ordering compensation in lieu of reinstatement. He further submitted that without prejudice to the first ground of challenge and even assuming that the compensation is to be awarded in lieu of reinstatement, the Learned single Judge ought to have taken into consideration the fact that at the time of passing of the order by the Learned single Judge, the appellant was 42 years of age and therefore he could have attained the age of superannuation after a period of 18 years and therefore the loss which would be sustained by the appellant on account of awarding of compensation in lieu of reinstatement ought to have been taken into consideration while fixing the amount of compensation, however, the learned single Judge failed to consider the, same. Reliance was sought to be placed in that regard in the decision in case of V. B. Rao v. Steel Authority of India Limited and Another air 1991 SC 1742 : (1991) Supp 2 SCC 338. The learned advocate appearing for the respondents has submitted that there is no case made out for interference in the impugned order as the materials on record clearly establish that there was no continuous work available for reinstatement of the appellant and hence the order of compensation in lieu of reinstatement was justified. He has further submitted that the compensation has been awarded by following the law laid down by the Apex Court in O. P. Bhandari v. Indian Tourism Development corporation Ltd. AIR 1987 SC 111 : (1986) 4 scc 337 : 1986-II-LLJ-509 and the sum of Rs. 50,000/- awarded was equivalent to forty months' salary which would have earned by the appellant if he was to be reinstated in the said post.