STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. GYANCHAND
LAWS(SC)-2006-7-64
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on July 28,2006

STATE OF RAJASTHAN Appellant
VERSUS
GHYANCHAND Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

JAGDISH NARAIN VS. JAIPUR ZILA DUGDHA UTPADAK SAHAKARI SANGH LTD [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-7-73] [REFERRED TO]
SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, P.W.D., B AND R VS. SURENDER AND ANR. [LAWS(P&H)-2008-9-175] [REFERRED TO]
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED VS. PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR [LAWS(P&H)-2014-1-174] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRASHEKARA AND ORS VS. DIRECTOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRAINING INSTITUTE AND ORS [LAWS(KAR)-2013-10-384] [REFERRED]
BALBIR KAUR VS. PRESIDING OFFICER AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2009-2-265] [REFERRED]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. RAM SINGH [LAWS(RAJ)-2013-5-71] [REFERRED TO]
NANDU DEVI VS. JUDGE LABOUR COURT [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-2-71] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KHILAWAN VS. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, (C), CCW, ALL INDIA RADIO JHALANA DOONGRI ROAD, JAIPUR [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-3-188] [REFERRED]
GENERAL MANAGER BANK OF MADURA LTD VS. M NATESAN [LAWS(MAD)-2007-3-360] [REFERRED TO]
RAMJAS FOUNDATION VS. DHEER SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2013-7-245] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL SELIM VS. STATE OF TRIPURA AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-2007-9-62] [REFERRED TO]
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF FOREST ENVIRONMENT & ECOLOGY VS. B.V. RANGASWAMY [LAWS(KAR)-2013-9-106] [REFERRED TO]
SATYA NARAYAN BHATNAGAR VS. LABOUR COURT, AJMER [LAWS(RAJ)-2013-1-80] [REFERRED TO]
MADAN MOHAN GUPTA VS. JUDGE LABOUR COURT [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-7-70] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P EXECUTIVE ENGINEER VS. MAHENDRA PAL SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2011-11-171] [REFERRED TO]
CHAIRMAN, TOWN AREA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2013-9-234] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT MALAYSIAN AIRLINES VS. PRESIDING OFFICER PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT [LAWS(MAD)-2011-1-330] [REFERRED TO]
DISTRICT MANAGER, HARYANA AGRO INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD., KAITHAL VS. WORKMAN, BHIRA RAM [LAWS(P&H)-2008-7-82] [REFERRED TO]
RICHPAL SINGH VS. GENERAL MANAGER [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-8-63] [REFERRED TO]
RAHUL SHARMA VS. SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(DLH)-2023-8-150] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the High Court should not have interfered with the quantum of damages awarded by the Labour Court in exercise of its jurisdiction u/s. 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court had directed payment of compensation keeping in view the fact that the respondent was a project employee and was not in service since June 1990. We do not find any justification for the High Court to arrive at a conclusion that reinstatement with 50% back wages will meet the ends of justice.
(3.)We, therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in modification of the order passed by the High Court, direct that the respondent shall be entitled to be paid a sum of Rs 50,000.00.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.