- (1.) Challenge in the instant petition is to the award dated 13.7.2011 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunalcum- Labour Court, Hisar whereby the reference has been answered in favour of the workman-respondent No.1 to the extent of having awarded a compensation of Rs. 60,000/-.
(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Society would assail the award by contending that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the workman was earlier an employee under the Government of Haryana and had superannuated in the year 1993 and as such, no person could have been appointed on regular basis after superannuation and the appointment, if any, was only on a contractual/part-time basis and such appointment could not fall under the purview of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'). The second submission raised by the learned counsel is that the awarded compensation of Rs. 60,000/- is much on the higher side. In this regard, it is submitted that under Section 25-F of the Act, the compensation was to be calculated at the rate of 15 days' salary per completed year of service multiplied by the total number of years. Learned counsel submits that the workman was appointed on 1.9.1998 and had left the job on 30.6.2006 i.e. having worked for approximately eight years. The last drawn salary of the workman was Rs. 3,400/- and as such, compensation, if at all to be awarded, would come to Rs. 3,400 divided by 2 = 1,700 and multiplied by 8 i.e. the length of service and which would come to Rs. 13,600/- only.
(3.) Per contra, Mr.Vivek Khatri, Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 would state that the award dated 13.7.2011 has been passed by the Tribunal upon due appreciation of evidence adduced on record and having returned a finding that there has been a violation of Section 25-F of the Act. Learned counsel would argue that the Presiding Officer has exercised its discretion in not granting the relief of re-instatement but has awarded a reasonable compensation of Rs. 60,000/- in lump sum and the same would not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.;