RAMESH SINGH RAJPUT Vs. CASTROL INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge by means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the Award dated 6.1.2005 of the Labour Court whereby the workman/Petitioner was denied reinstatement but was granted 50% of the back wages from the date of his termination till the passing of the Award i.e., from 1.1.1993 to 6.1.2005, a period of about 12 years.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the Petitioner was employed by the Respondent No. 1 and was posted as Incharge of the Godown of the Respondent and where different goods of the Respondent No. 1 was stocked. The case of the Petitioner/workman was that on 1.1.1993 he was not allowed to enter into the office and therefore in effect he was retrenched without complying with the provision of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The defence of the management was that there were shortages in the warehouses and the management did not immediately terminate the services of the workman on his first default. On the first default, he was advised to be careful in future and which was after the workman expressed his regret for the lapse on 8.11.1992. The management further stated in its defence that in November,1992, the Petitioner was found to have acted with gross negligence in sending goods to a party without due authorization and which resulted in loss to the Respondent No. 1 company. It is then that the management terminated the services of the employee because as per the management, the position of Incharge of receipt and dispatch of material /goods was a position of care and responsibility and the irregularities committed by the Petitioner were such so as to affect the confidence of the management.

(3.) On disputes arising between the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 1 reference was made to the Labour Court as to whether the termination of services of the Petitioner were illegal/unjustified and if so, to what relief was the Petitioner entitled to. After evidence was led before the Labour Court, the Labour Court held that the workman was illegally retrenched. By the impugned award, however, instead of granting reinstatement, the Petitioner was granted 50% of the back wages from 1.1.1993 to 6.1.2005. The counsel for the Respondent No. 1 states that accordingly pursuant to the impugned Award, a sum of Rs. 3,51,046/- stands paid to the workman/Petitioner. Therefore, effectively, what the Labour Court ordered was compensation instead of reinstatement and which compensation is quantified at Rs. 3,51,046/-. This quantum should be taken in the context that the last drawn salary of the Petitioner which was Rs. 4,870/- per month and since the workman had worked for about 12 years, if there was valid retrenchment, the workman would have got about a sum of Rs. 33,000/-.