EXECUTIVE OFFICER Vs. BABOO RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties. In all, three contentions have been raised before us. The first is that the retrenchment was necessitated as the Scheme, under which the respondents were employed, was no more in force and, therefore, no work could be allotted to the respondents. This stand has been considered by the Labour Court in its order, dated 30th October, 2008. In paragraph 14 of the said decision, it has been found that no evidence whatsoever was produced by the appellant to substantiate the stand taken that the respondents were engaged for performance of a specific work. The Court has further found that the evidence would, on the contrary, indicate that sufficient developmental work was available and was being executed through private contractor after termination of the services of the respondents.

(2.) THIS finding of fact was assailed before the learned Single Judge of the High Court in the writ petition, which has been negatived. There is no reason why this Court in exercise of LPA jurisdiction should re-appreciate the evidence on record to take a different view. It is not argued before us that the finding, so recorded, is error apparent on the record or manifestly wrong. Hence, this submission is devoid of merits.

(3.) THE only other question that remains to be considered is about the direction given by the learned Single Judge to pay Rs.50,000/- to the respondent(s) as lump sum amount in lieu of back wages. The argument proceeds that the learned Single Judge having noticed that no affidavit was filed by the respondent(s) asserting that they were not gainfully employed, no relief of back wages could be granted to such employees. This submission is canvassed on the basis of exposition in the case of Managing Director, Balasaheb Desai Sahakari S.K. Limited versus Kashinath Ganapati Kambale, (2009) 2 SCC 288. This argument has been considered by the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge, having found that the case on hand could be disposed of on the same basis as in the case of Executive Engineer, HPPWD, Dharampur Division versus Dhani Ram, Latest HLJ 2010 (HP) Vol.2, 972, awarded lump sum amount of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent(s) instead of 50% back wages awarded by the Labour Court. It is not in dispute that 50% of the back wages would be much more than Rs.1.00 lac to be received by the respondent(s). Instead, the appellant has been directed to pay only lump sum amount of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent(s), which cannot be said to be excessive, even assuming that the respondents were gainfully employed to some extent during the relevant period and also considering the fact that the respondents were kept out of service from 2002 onwards. The learned Single Judge having followed the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, we decline to interfere in these Letters Patent Appeals.