UNION OF INDIA Vs. KILPEST P LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on this appeal, which has been filed by the workman against the judgment and order dated 6th October, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge. By the said order, the learned Single Judge modified the award passed by the Central Governemnt Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court and passed a direction that in lieu of reinstatement and back wages as ordered by the Central Governemnt Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, the respondent would be paid an amount of Rs.15,000/- as lump sum compensation. The Central Governemnt Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court to whom a reference was made of the dispute between the parties, registered a case with the following terms of reference :-

(2.) The Central Governemnt Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court received evidence adduced by the parties and, thereafter, passed the award holding that the termination of service of the workman was illegal and unjustified. It was held that consequently the workman would be entitled to reinstatement with 50% back wages. The aforesaid award passed by the Central Governemnt Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court was challenged by the management by filing a writ petition in this Court in which the aforesaid order of compensation of Rs.15,000/- was passed.

(3.) It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that although appellant has worked only for a period of one year with the respondent management yet he had pursued litigation initiated against him for about 20 years and, therefore, compensation as awarded is meagre and is required to be enhanced. We are informed that during the pendency of the writ petition the appellant was enjoying the benefit of Section 17 B and in terms of the said provision he was paid the minimum wages. The aforesaid order was passed by the learned Single Judge. In a number of decisions it has been held that such payment is in the nature of subsistence allowance, although it is true that difference between minimum wages and last drawn wages in appropriate case can be recovered. However, we do not think that the present case is a fit case where an order for recovery of the difference between last drawn wages and the minimum wages should be made and the appellant should be asked to refund the amount already paid under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act.