LAXMI LAMP INDUSTRIES Vs. PURANMASI YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Exemption as prayed for is granted subject to all just exceptions. WPC No. 8853/2009 and CM No. 6187/2009 (for stay) This writ petition filed by the management (petitioner herein) is directed against an award dated 13.08.2007 passed by Ms. Sujata Kohli, Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Delhi, directing petitioner to pay compensation of Rs. 3 Lakhs to the workman (respondent herein) in lieu of his claim for reinstatement and back wages for illegal termination of his services by the management w.e.f. 23.03.1996.

(2.) The respondent had joined the service of the petitioner as Foreman in 1993 at a salary of Rs. 3,000/- per month. The workman raised an industrial dispute on or around January 1996 as he was not paid wages for about 3 months at the time he raised the dispute. In conciliation proceedings that were taken by the Conciliation Officer on 22.03.1996, the management paid him his wages that were due to him on that day and also agreed to take him back on duty immediately as per the settlement document dated 22.03.1996 Ex. WW-1/18 proved before the Labour Court. The respondent went to resume duties with the petitioner establishment on 23.03.1996 and again on 24.03.1996. When he went to resume duties with the petitioner on 23.03.1996, he was not allowed to resume duties and was rather physically assaulted by the people of the management for which the workman lodged a complaint with the police and also sent a demand notice dated 01.04.1996 to the management stating all the facts including the incident of physical assault that took place on 23.03.1996 when he went to resume duty with the management in terms of settlement dated 22.03.1996.

(3.) As the workman was not permitted to resume duties by the management in terms of settlement dated 22.03.1996, the workman again raised an industrial dispute with regard to his illegal termination from service of the petitioner and the said dispute was referred by the appropriate Government to the Labour Court for adjudication. The Labour Court vide its impugned award after considering the entire evidence placed before it reached to a conclusion that the services of the respondent were illegally terminated by the management and that he was not permitted to resume duties by the management when he went to resume duties on 23.03.1996 and 24.03.1996 in terms of the settlement dated 22.03.1996. The Labour Court instead of granting reinstatement and back wages to the workman chose to award Rs. 3 Lakhs as compensation to the workman in lieu of his claim for reinstatement and back wages.