VINOD KUMAR GUPTA Vs. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF IMMUNOLOGY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra-court appeal challenges the judgment dated 02 nd June, 2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) Nos. 16023/2004 and 5016/2003(Titled 'Vinod Kumar Gupta v. National Institute of Immunology', and 'National Institute of Immunology v. Vinod Kumar Gupta', respectively.) [hereinafter referred to as the "impugned judgment"]. The impugned judgment decided writ petitions filed by both parties contesting an award rendered by the Labour Court which held the Appellant's termination by the Respondent to be illegal. In the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge dismissed Respondent's objections and endorsed the Labour Court's conclusion of illegal termination. Both the Labour Court and learned Single Judge declined to reinstate the Appellant to his former position, however, the learned Single Judge enhanced the initial compensation of Rs.50,000.00, awarded by the Labour Court, to Rs.1,50,000.00. It is this partial relief - specifically, the refusal to reinstate the Appellant - which motivates the present appeal.

(2.) Factual background leading to the present appeal: Employment and Termination

(3.) At the outset, Mr. N.S. Dalal, counsel for Appellant, on instructions, clarified that although the present appeal impugns the decision of the Single Judge in its entirety, he would limit the challenge to the adequacy of the compensation awarded in lieu of reinstatement. He contended that since both, the learned Single Judge and Labour Court, concurred on the illegality of the termination, the Appellant is entitled to a far more substantial compensation amount. The Appellant was unjustly removed from service over three decades ago, and in light of this extended period, the compensation of Rs.1,50,000.00 is grossly insufficient. Mr. Dalal also emphasized that the Appellant should not bear the consequences of the Respondent's untenable and factually incorrect position throughout the proceedings. In other words, the Appellant should not be made a scapegoat for the Respondent's incorrect and legally unsound arguments. On the other hand, Mr. G.D. Sharma, counsel representing the Respondent, defended the impugned judgment. He argued that the judgment struck a well-balanced approach and thus warrants no further interference.