- (1.) THE petitioner, who was in employment of the respondent No. 1 as an Analytical Chemist from 11-10-1974, was terminated from employment with effect from 1-9-1978. He challenged the said order of termination by rasing an industrial dispute which was referred by the Government for adjudication to the 1st Labour Court, Solapur.
(2.) THE parties completed their pleadings and adduced their respective oral and documentary evidence. The Labour Court framed issues in respect of legality and impropriety of the termination order and relief, if any, to be granted to the petitioner workman. The Labour Court held that the order of termination of the petitioner workman was illegal for non compliance of the mandatory provisions of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as the amount of retrenchment compensation was not offered. The Labour Court however, came to a conclusion that the retrenchment of the petitioner was necessitated and was bona fide action. It, however, found that the employers statement in the order of retrenchment that, "you may collect your dues, if any, from our office during office hours" is not an offer of retrenchment compensation to the petitioner, and therefore, the Labour Court concluded that it violated section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is further equally pertinent to note that retrenchment has been held to be bona fide and necessary. As a normal rule the petitioner should have been given the relief of reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case the Labour Court has moulded the relief and instead of granting normal relief it awarded Rs. 10,000/- as compensation in lieu of reinstatement to the petitioner. The Labour Court has given cogent and sufficient reasons for its departure from the normal rule of reinstatement and full back wages. I do not find any illegality or impropriety in moulding the relief. The Labour Court has accepted the contention of the employer that the petitioner was employed in 1974 while other Analytical Chemist of his cadre was in employment from 1968 and was senior to the petitioner. It was the case of the employer society that it required only one Analytical Chemist and there was no work for two Analytical Chemists. It is an admitted position that the respondents society is a Charitable Organisation of International repute and their bona fides and good motives are not challenged. The employer society has all along been urging that their activities do not amount to commercial activities and are not in the nature of an industrial activity and, therefore, they could not afford to employ two persons for the work which was available with them. It was argued on behalf of the employer society that if the petitioner is to be reinstated pursuant to the Award of this Court, the other Senior Chemist will have to be removed as there was no work for two such employees. The Labour Court found the submissions reasonable and it further noted that the petitioner himself is presently employed in some other employment and would not suffer any loss or hardship if he is not granted reinstatement in the employer society as he was already employed somewhere else. By unemploying the presently employed Analytical Chemist Shri Mehta, who would raise an industrial dispute challenging the action of the society it would give multiplicity of litigation. Considering all these facts the Labour Court thought it fit to Award an amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/ -. The Labour Court has also while moulding the relief considered the fact that the petitioner was all along employed in one or the other organisation and had not suffered the hardship of unemployment for a long period. The Labour Court rightly took support from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (S. K. Verma and others v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi), reported in 1981 (1) L. L. J. 386. As observed by the Supreme Court there is a vestige of discretion left to the Court to make appropriate consequential orders. It means that even an order of termination is held to be illegal it is not that in every case reinstatement with full back wages as a normal rule should follow. There can be departure from this normal rule in exceptional circumstances and according to me, the exceptional circumstances are present in our case. In my opinion, therefore, the Labour Court has rightly decided to award compensation in lieu of reinstatement to the petitioner. I, however, consider the amount of Rs. 10,000/- is not adequate and reasonable in the given circumstances. The petitioner having succeeded in proving the order of termination illegal he would be entitled to get atleast a total sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- by way of back wages. This figure is given by both the learned Advocates. The respondent is a Charitable and Social Organisation of International repute and this fact is not disputed even by the learned Advocate for the respondent Shri Dharap. He, however, urged that the amount of compensation may be atleast 50% of the back wages, that is to say, Rs. 75,000/ -. Since the respondent society is purely a charitable organisation, I am not inclined to grant 50% of the full back wages as compensation. According to me, on the basis of the rule of subsistence allowance that is 1/3 of the total wages payable for subsistence of a workman, I increase the amount of compensation from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- which would be exactly 1/3 of the total back wages that would have been earned by the petitioner workman. According to me, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- would be reasonable and sufficient amount of compensation in lieu of reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service. It is clarified that this amount of Rs. 50,000/- will include the amount of Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the Labour Court. The respondent society would pay the said amount of Rs. 50,000/- within a period of one month from today. The petition is disposed of and rule is made absolute as above. No order as to costs.
(3.) PARTIES to act on an ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar of this Court. Petition allowed.;