SHETHNA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner - Executive Officer of Municipal Board, Nimbaheda has challenged in this petition the impugned award dated 22. 2. 1999 (Annex. 6) passed by the Labour Court, Bhilwara, whereby, the learned Labour Judge declared the termination of the respondent workman illegal and quashed the same and ordered reinstatement in service but denied back wages.
(2.) ON 1. 7. 1999 when this matter was placed for admission before my learned brother Hon'ble Dr. B. S. Chauhan, J. , His lordship ordered to issue notice on the limited ground as to whether the impugned award can be modified by giving compensation in lieu of reinstatement. In response to the notice, Mr. Ravi Bhansali has appeared for the respondents. Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Labour Judge has committed an error in holding that respondent workman has completed 240 days in one calendar year, therefore, impugned award of reinstatement passed by the Labour Court be quashed and set aside. Though there is some substance in this submission of Mr. Joshi, but he will not be permitted to raise this submission in view of the specific order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court while issuing notice to the respondents regarding compensation in lieu of reinstatement. Mr. Joshi for the petitioner then submitted that the respondent workman was initially employed in August, 1991 as a casual labour for Rs. 22/- per day. He abandoned the job in 1993 because he was doing business. He, therefore, submitted that such a person cannot be reinstated in service and some reasonable amount be awarded to him by way of compensation. He also pointed out from the award of Labour Court that the respondent workman was denied back wages because of his specific admission that he was doing business. He also submitted that on the facts of this case, maximum amount of Rs. 25,000/- by way of compensation in lieu of reinstatement would be more than reasonable. In support of his submission, Mr. Joshi has relied upon four Supreme Court Judgments; Syed Azam Hussaini vs. Andhra Bank Ltd. (1), Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and Another vs. Mulu Amra (2), Roiston John vs. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court (3) and Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union vs. Delhi Administration In Syed Azam's case (supra) the workman was working as clerk and considering the facts of that case Rs. 75,000/- was awarded to him by way of compensation in lieu of reinstatement as well as back wages because his services were terminated 24 years back. In case of Mulu Amra (supra), the suggestion came from the counsel for the workman himself that 75% of back wages be paid by way of compensation. There both the learned counsel for the parties agreed to pay Rs. 75,000/- and accordingly the said amount was paid by way of compensation in lieu of reinstatement.
(3.) IN case of Roiston John (supra) the services of workman were terminated on the ground of absence without leave and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Supreme court ordered to pay Rs. 50,000/- by way of compensation to the workman in lieu of reinstatement. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that compensation of Rs. 25,000/- in lieu of reinstatement would be more than sufficient because of the fact that the respondent workman was denied back wages because of his clear admission that he was doing business. No useful purpose will be served by reinstating such person and that too after a period of more than 8 years. Such a person doing business would never concentrate in service. Thus, the amount of Rs. 25,000/- by way of compensation is more that sufficient to the respondent workman. However, learned counsel Shri Ravi Bhansali for the respondent workman submitted that in the recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Vikramaditya Pandey vs. Industrial Tribunal, Lucknow and Another (5), it has been held that proper relief in case of illegal retrenchment would be of reinstatement with or without back wages. He, therefore, submitted that notice issued on the limited ground of compensation in lieu of reinstatement by the learned Single Judge be discharged. There cannot be any quarrel with the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vikramaditya Pandey's case (supra ). ;