RAM GYANI VERMA Vs. P O LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the award passed by the Presiding Officer Labour Court in Case No. 109/96 under the Industrial Disputes Act is challenged by the 'Management' as well as the workman in both these writ petitions, they were heard analogously and disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The writ petition No. 1776/97 is at the instance of the workman and the writ petition No. 5326 (sic) by the Management. The workman, the petitioner in writ petition No. 2776/97 was employed as khawas under the supervision of House Master in Rajkumar College, Raipur. The said workman faced trial for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 Penal Code on the allegations that he murdered his wife in Sessions Trial No. 140/90 before Learned Sessions Judge, Balia, who on consideration of material on record acquitted him of the charges under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code. The Management has dispensed with the services of the petitioner at this juncture. After his acquittal he had raised an Industrial Dispute for reinstatement with all consequential benefits. The matter was referred to the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act and the Presiding Officer considering all the aspects came to hold that the order of termination was not justified. However, on taking into consideration the nature of duty of the workman and the surrounding situation the Presiding Officer did not allow the prayer for reinstatement but directed for payment of compensation of Rs. 25,000.00. Refusal of the reinstatement is cause of grievance of the workman and the quantum of compensation is reason of dissatisfaction of the Management.

(3.) Both these writ petitions were heard analogously on 22.2.98. Mr. Vyas,learned counsel for the petitioner/workman fairly stated that he would not press for reinstatement but there has to be enhancement of the compensation. Mr. R.K. Gupta appearing along with Mr. Alok Aradhe, learned counsel for the Management initially prayed for reduction of compensation. Mr. Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner indicated in course of his argument that the workman would be satisfied if the compensation granted be fixed at Rs. 90,000.00. The learned counsel for the Management submitted that he had to consult the Management. In view of the aforesaid position, the matter was reserved for order. Thereafter, a memorandum has been filed by the learned counsel for the Management indicating therein they are agreeable to pay Rs. 90,000.00 towards compensation.