DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/Delhi Development Authority (DDA) challenges the Award dated February 22, 1996 passed by the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the respondent No.3/workman with continuity of service and back wages except for the period from November 1, 1986 to July 19, 1988. The grant of reinstatement is on the basis of the fact that the workman has served from June 15, 1983 to October 14, 1983, June 15, 1984 to October 14, 1984 and January 9, 1985 to October 31, 1986 and the impugned retrenchment is in violation of Section 25-F and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(2.) MUCH water has flown since the Award was delivered on February 22, 1996. The trend of judicial opinion today is that reinstatement on account of violation of Section 25-F, and even for violation of Section 25-H is not automatic. Reinstatement has to be seen from the point of view of various factors such as whether the employment was in accordance with the rules or de hors the same, what is the period for which the workman was employed, the nature of employment of the workman and various other factors. The recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Incharge Officer and Another v. Shankar Shetty (2010) 9 SCC 126:2010-IV-LLJ-617 crystallizes the position in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the said judgment which read as under:

(3.) IF the respondent No. 3/workman was given compensation under Section 25-F in the year 1986, considering that he was a daily wager, the retrenchment compensation would have worked out to about Rs. 1,000/- only. This compensation is worked out on the basis of 15 days of pay for each year since 1983 till 1986 and also pay for 30 days. Ms. Salwan, appearing for the petitioner has stated that charges payable to a daily wager by the petitioner was approximately Rs. 17/- in the year 1988. Thus 15 days wage would be about Rs. 255/-. The workman worked for just two years for the full period of 240 days and thus for two years the amount of compensation would be Rs. 510/-. To this if we add 30 days notice pay of Rs. 255/- the same would come to Rs. 765/-. Even at the very best considering the days worked in earlier years prior to 1985 and other aspects the compensation at best would only be Rs. 1,000/- calculated as per the requirement of Section 25-F. Taking into account the inflation and the return of money which the workman would have got if he would have received compensation of Rs. 1,000/- in the year 1986 and today we are in 2010,I find that the present is a fit case where considering that the money multiplies to about double every 7 to 10 years, compensation alongwith penal compensation (so to say) can at best work out to a sum of Rs. 60,000/- when multiplied from the regular payable compensation under Section 25-F of Rs. 1,000/-.