D. S. Sinha, J. - (1.) AWARD dated 10th February, 1983. rendered by the Labour Court, Allahabad, the respondent no. 1, in Adjudication Case no 101 of 1981, arising out of a reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act) in relation to the order of termination dated 19th April, 1980 whereby the employer dispensed with the services of the petitioner, is under challenge in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) BY means of the impugned award, the Labour Court, the respondent no. 1, has found that the termination of the services of the petitioner was not legal and proper. But, taking into account the circumstances of the case, it has granted the relief of compensation equivalent to two years' salary along with dearness allowance and Rs- 200/- as costs The Court has heard Sri Shishir Kumar, appearing for the petitioner and Sri N. K. Pandey, holding the brief of Sri A. Kumar, learned counsel representing the employer-respondent no. 2. Sri Shishir Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the Labour Court committed a manifest error of law in not directing the reinstatement of the petitioner and granting compensation of two years' salary along with dearness allowance in lieu thereof in as much as once It found that the termination was not proper and legal, it had no jurisdiction to grant any relief other than reinstatement.
(3.) THE short answer to the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is section 11-A of the Act which clothes the Labour Court, the Tribunal and the National Tribunal with the power to deny the relief of reinstatement and give such other relief to the workman as the circumstances of the case may require. In fact, section 11-A of the Act confers a discretion to grant a relief other than reinstatement if the circumstances of the case so warrant. of course, this discretion has to be exercised on relevant considerations and not capriciously. In the instant case, the Labour Court has found that the petitioner was appointed in violation of the provisions of the U. P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1973 or 1975 It is not necessary to go into the question as to whether violation of the aforesaid provisions would render the appointment of the petitioner void or viocable The fact remains that the provisions were not duly complied with casting a serious doubt on the validity of the appointment of the petitioner, and this circumstances is valid circumstances for denying the relief of reinstatement. In any case, it is not a case where no relief has been granted to the petitioner. At best it can be said to be a case of grant of lesser relief, which is permissible under the provisions of section 11-A of the Act. Thus the impugned award does not suffer from any such vice which tray warrant interference by this court in exercise of its special jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.;