DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER Vs. ANWAR HAMID

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant/ Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation has challenged the judgment and order dated 16.2.1993 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent/ employee and directing the appellant/Corporation to pay a consolidated sum of Rs.2,50,000/- by way of compensation in lieu of reinstatement or to reinstate the respondent with full back wages.

(2.) SHRI R.K.Deshpande, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the grant of compensation in lieu of reinstatement is governed by the Apex Court judgment in the case of O.P. Bhandari v. Indian Tourism Development Corporation & ors. reported in 1986 (4) SCC 337. He argued that in accordance with the said decision of Apex Court, compensation equivalent to 3.33 years' salary including allowances as admissible on the basis of the last pay and allowances drawn by the employee would be reasonable amount to award in lieu of reinstatement. He pointed out that as a matter of fact the learned Single Judge has accepted the legal principles enunciated in the O.P. Bhandari's case for calculating the compensation. The grievance of the appellant, however, is that though the last pay and allowances drawn by the respondent was Rs.849/- per month, the learned Single Judge took into consideration the last pay and allowances drawn at Rs.3,000/- per month which is without any basis. He further argued that the learned Single Judge added an amount of Rs.1,83,384/- towards future loss of wages, which is not permissible in the light of the law laid down by the apex Court in O.P.Bhandari's case, supra. In his submission, 3.33 years' salary on the basis of the last pay and allowances drawn would come to Rs.33,926=04 (Rs.34,000).

(3.) MR.Khan then urged that the appellant had not tendered any evidence before the Labour Court though the respondent had entered the witness box and, therefore, it was a case of no evidence. Mr.Khan then strenuously urged in an attempt to distinguish the judgment in O.P.Bhandari's case that the person concerned in O.P.Bhandari's case was occupying a managerial post and was therefore a 'gold collar' employee as against the respondent-conductor, a 'blue collar' workman. He, therefore, urged that the ratio of O.P. Bhandari's case should not be made applicable in the instant case. Lastly, he submitted that the respondent expired on 16.12.1996 during the pendency of the present lis and the family left by him does not have substantial means of subsistence.