STATE OF U P Vs. GANGA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LIST revised. No one appears for the contesting respondent. Heard learned standing counsel for the petitioner. This writ petition is directed against award dated 28.06.1990 given by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bareilly in Adjudication Case No.61 of 1989. The matter which was referred to the labour court was as to whether the action of the employer petitioner terminating the services of its workman respondent No.1 w.e.f. 17.08.1987 was legal and valid or not. The case of the petitioner was that respondent No.1 was appointed on temporary basis as part-time tube-well operator for three years w.e.f. April, 1984 and his working hours were two and a half hours per day and that w.e.f. 16.05.1987, he was again appointed for three years, however his work was found unsatisfactory, hence services were terminated on 17.08.1987. Salary of the respondent No.1 was Rs.299/- per month. The further case of the employer petitioner was that a motor of a tube-well, which was under the control of respondent No.1, had also been stolen. However neither in the termination order any such thing was mentioned nor any such enquiry was held in which petitioner was provided opportunity of hearing. In the order of termination, the only ground, which was mentioned, was that work of the workman respondent No.1 was not satisfactory. The labour court held that termination order was bad as provisions of Section 6-N of U.P.I.D. Act had not been complied with as no retrenchment compensation had been paid. Ultimately, reinstatement with back wages was directed. Through the interim order passed in this writ petition on 12.05.1992, operation of the impugned award was stayed, however that order was modified on 09.05.1996 and only back wages were stayed on the condition that respondent No.1 was reinstated forthwith and paid wages with effect from the date of publication of the award. No one has appeared on behalf of the workman. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not sure as to whether workman was reinstated after 09.05.1996 or not. In my opinion, the more appropriate course for the labour court was to award the damages equivalent to the salary of the period for which petitioner was appointed, i.e. about two years and nine months. It has been held in 2008 AIR SCW 7325, Divisional Manager New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. A. Sankaralingam that part time employee is also entitled to the benefit of Section 6-N of U.P.I.D. Act (or Section 25-F, I.D. Act). However, Supreme Court in Nagar Mahapalika Vs. State, AIR 2006 SC 2113 and Haryana SEDC Vs. Mamni, AIR 2006 SC 2427 and AIR 2008 SC 1955 "Sita Ram Vs. Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute" has held that if the only defect in the termination order is non-payment of retrenchment compensation under Section 6-N of U.P.I.D. Act or 25-F of I.D. Act, then in certain circumstances the proper relief to be granted is that of payment of consolidated damages/compensation and reinstatement is not to be granted automatically in every case. It has further been held that this course shall more liberally be followed in case employer is State or State agency and it is not shown by the workman that any procedure was followed before his appointment. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned award is set aside and substituted by a direction to the petitioner to pay Rs.25,000/- as consolidated damages/compensation to respondent No.1 within three months in addition to the amount which may have been paid to the respondent No.1 or may have been recovered by him from the petitioner under the impugned award till date. In case of default 2% per month interest shall be payable on the aforesaid damages since after three moths till actual payment.