K. RAGHUNATHAN Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ appeals have been directed against the order passed in the writ petitions, wherein the learned single Judge, finding that the appellants, while serving as Cook, Bearer, Cleaner, etc., were terminated in the year 1990 and thereafter have approached the Labour Court, Salem on the ground that when they have put in 240 days of service in a calendar year, they cannot be terminated without following the mandatory conditions mentioned in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, enhancing the compensation awarded by the Labour Court from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.4,00,000/- to each of the appellants, has directed the second respondentManagement to pay the said amount of compensation within twelve weeks time, after deducting Rs.25,000/- that was already received by each of them.

(2.) We have also gone through the award and also the order passed by the learned single Judge. The Labour Court, Salem, while dealing with the contentions raised by both parties, came to the conclusion that the appellants cannot claim as a matter of right that they should be reinstated in service with backwages in every case, because they were terminated from 1.3.90 onwards and nearly after a period of nine long years, they had approached the Labour Court. However, the Labour Court, finding that the appellants were engaged as daily wagers and have completed 480 days of service in 24 calendar months and they have been terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and that 15 long years had gone by, ordered for payment of Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the appellants. When the said award was put to challenge in the writ petitions, the learned single Judge has enhanced the compensation to Rs.4,00,000/- to each of the appellants, considering the fact that the canteen run by the second respondent Management in which the appellants were working, was also given on lease to private contractors, therefore, the question of reinstatement does not arise. We also agree with the said findings. Since the canteen in which the appellants were engaged has also been given on lease to private contractors, the direction given by the learned single Judge to the second respondent Management to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation to each of the appellants, after deducting Rs.25,000/- already received by them pursuant to the award, being reasonable, requires no interference, Therefore, rejecting the request of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant for further enhancement, these writ appeals are dismissed. Needless to state that the second respondent Management shall pay the balance compensation of Rs.3,75,000/- to each of the appellants within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There is no order as to costs.