KANSHI RAM VERMA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, Kanshi Ram Verma, has filed the present petition for quashing of the award (Annexure P-1) of the Labour Court, whereby while deciding the entire case in his favour reinstatement has been denied and a compensation of Rs. 2000.00 ordered in lieu thereof.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner was employed as Overseer by respondent No. 3 Dayanand Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana, on 31.7.1971. His services were terminated on 31.12.1971, but he was thereafter, reinstated though without back-wages on 16.8.1975. The services of the petitioner were thereafter once again terminated on 1.6.1976 without issuance of any notice, charge-sheet or an enquiry, which led to the raising of an industrial dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 3 culminating the Award, Annexure P1. The Labour Court found that the order terminating the services of the petitioners was unjustified as the retrenchment compensation due to him had not been paid or tendered because the petitioner had admittedly put in more than 240 days of service. The argument of the Management-respondent that as the workman had been paid 15 days' wages in lieu of notice period, it amounted to sufficient compliance of the terms and conditions of appointment, was also negatived by the Labour Court. Having held as above, the Labour Court found that as the relations between the petitioner and his employer were somewhat strained, it was not in the interest of industrial harmony to order reinstatement and so, it was ordered that he be paid compensation to the extent of Rs. 2000.00.

(3.) It is well settled that where the services of a workman are illegally terminated, the normal rule is reinstatement to the service with full backwages. This principle can, however, be deviated from if the Court finds that the reinstatement would not be in the interest of the institution where the workman was earlier working. This was so held in Cawnpur Omnibus Service Limited Vs. Cawnpur Omnibus Service Employees' Union, 1951(2) Labour Law Journal 483. The relevant portion is reproduced hereunder :