- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. List revised. No one appears for the respondent. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) IT appears that the officers of petitioner, Uttar Pradesh Samaj Kalyan Nirman Nigam Limited who are responsible for conducting the proceedings before Labour Court are extremely negligent or they are in collusion with the workman respondent No. 2 Mahesh Kumar Nagal. In any of these two contingencies, it is essential for the petitioner to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the concerned officers. Respondent No. 2, Mahesh Kumar Nagal complained that his services had wrongly been terminated on 10-3-1996 even though he had worked for 10 years with the petitioner concern. Deputy Labour, Commissioner Jhansi made the reference to the-Labour Court. The matter was registered as Adjudication case No. 99 of 1996. Before Presiding Officer, Labour Court (I) U. P. Kanpur, no one on behalf of the petitioner employer appeared. The presiding officer therefore on 29-8-1996 gave the award in favour of the workman directing reinstatement with full back wages. Thereafter employer petitioner filed restoration/review/recall application. Copy of the application is on page 33 which is part of Annexure 5 to the writ petition. The application does not contain any date. The prayer in the application was that ex parte the order dated 29-8-1996 be set-aside and recalled. The ground taken in the application was that the employer was not aware of the proceedings of the case. No one appeared to press the said restoration application also hence it was dismissed in default on 18-10-1997; copy of the order is Annexure 9 to the writ petition. The fact of filing restoration application and its dismissal has been mentioned in paragraph 13 and 14 of the writ petition. Unfortunately not a single word has been stated therein that what was the reason for absence or for not pressing the restoration application for the officer concerned of the petitioner employer. If suitable action as aforesaid is not taken against the erring officer, in future Court may take cognizance of failure of the higher officer also in this regard. As far as merit of the case is concerned, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that respondent No. 2 was not petitioner's employee but he was an employee of contractor. All these things require scrutiny of fact, which is not permissible for this Court. Matter cannot be remanded to the Labour Court for the reason that restoration was allowed to be dismissed in default and even in the writ petition not a single word has been said as to why no one could appear to press the restoration application before the Labour Court. Court cannot be of any help to the petitioner in view of gross, utter negligence, which was repeatedly committed by the officers of the petitioner.
(3.) HOWEVER, the legal position is that even if the termination is illegal for non-compliance of provisions of Section 6-N of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act still it is not essential to direct reinstatement. In suitable cases consolidated damages/compensation is the proper relief vide Nagar Maha Palika v. State, AIR 2006 SC 2113 and Haryana SEDC v. Mamni, AIR 2006 SC 2427. Accordingly impugned order is modified and it is directed that instead of reinstatement with full back wages respondent No. 2 shall be paid Rs. 1 Lakh as consolidated damages/compensation. It appears that in spite of interim order passed by this Court on 8- 1-1998 respondent No. 2 was not reinstated. However, no further amount apart from Rs. 1 Lakh shall be payable to respondent No. 2. It is clarified that in case after the impugned award respondent No. 2 was permitted to join for any period and was paid salary for the said period then the salary or wages paid during the said period shall not be deducted from the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1 Lakh. In case, the case had properly been contested and evidence had been led before the Labour Court, while modifying the award of reinstatement, damages to the tune of about Rs. 25000/- or 30000/- would have been awarded as was done by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases however due to utter negligence of officers of the petitioner concern, damages of Rs. 1 Lakh are being awarded. Petitioner is also entitled to recover the amount of Rs. 75000/- out of the awarded amount of Rs. 1 Lakh from the salary of officer who was responsible for conducting the case before the Labour Court. The aforesaid amount shall be paid within three months failing which 1% interest per month shall be payable since after three months till actual payment.;