HARSHA TRACTORS LIMITED Vs. SECRETARYLABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is no appearance for any of the parties. There was no appearance for any of the parties on 9.1.2001 also. Accordingly, the writ petition which is of the year 1984 is being taken up today for hearing.

(2.) On 17th of February, 1984, notice was issued by this Court confined to th question that as to. Labour Court's award of disproportionate and excessive compensation of Rs.60,000.00toworkman-respondentNo. 3 in lieu of reinstatement by the impugned Award dated 23/07/1983.

(3.) This writ petition is thus confined to the quantum of compensation of Rs. 60,000.00 awarded in lieu of reinstatement. One cannot lose sight of the fact that the invalidity of the termination of services of the petitioner stood upheld by this Court's Order dated 17.2.1984.1 am only required to determine the plea raised by the petitioner that the amount awarded as compensation in lieu of reinstatement was excessive. Considering the fact that the petitioner-management's did not deny that neither the charge-sheet was served nor an enquiry was held before the termmation of the services of the workman, thecompenstion of Rs.60,000.00appears to be on the lower side. Similarly even before waiting for the service of letter dated 15th of October, 1974, asking the respondent No. 3 to join duties at the transferred place (which was served only on 26.10.1974) the services of the workman-respondent No. 3 were. terminated on 23.10.1974. This is an additional ground which demonstrates that the petitioner-management were pre-determined to terminate the services of the respondent No. 3. The Labour Court has also rightly found clear violation of principles of natural justice in dispensing with the services of the respondent No. 3. Furthermore in arriving at the figure of Rs. 60.000.00 as compensation, the Labour Court has taken into account all relevant circumstances such as the salary drawn, the other terminal benefits and the age of retirement. Thus this figure of Rs. 60,000.00 has been arrived on relevant considerations and is not menable to interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.