STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIALTD Vs. K B SARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Jail authority has challenged the quantum and calculation of compensation allowed in favour of the respondent No.1 by the respondent No.2 in Reference Case No. 25 of 1989, as contained in Annexure-4.

(2.) Some backgrounds and history of the case is necessary for disposal of this writ petition. The respondent No.1 joined at Bokaro Steel Plant as Machine Tool Operator on 5.8.1974 on an offer being made on 9.4.1974. He worked as such till 24.5.1976 and then he became absent and according to the respondent No.1 he was absent as he was arrested in connection with theft/embezzlement of some materials within the knowledge of the petitioner-Company and after being released from the jail, when he wanted to join in the service he was not allowed as his name was found to be struck off from the Rolls of the Company in terms of Clause-20 (xi) of the Certified Standing Orders. This happened in the year 1976 but the respondent No.1 sat tight over the matter and after about 10 years he raised the issue which came in the form of Industrial dispute regarding his illegal termination from service. On notification being made, Reference Case No. 25 of 1989 was registered before the respondent No.2 and award was pronounced on 12.11.92, whereby it was held that the action of the Management in terminating the service of the respondent-workman is invalid but as because the workman has not been doing his job for last 17 years, it was held that his reinstatement would not be proper and as such awarded consolidated sum of Rs. One Lac as money compensation in lieu of reinstatement. The respondent No.1 received the same with objection and then filed CWJC No. 745/93 (R) before this Court. By order dated 27.7.1993, a Division Bench of this Court held that the Tribunal was right in holding that the reinstatement in this particular case was not proper but as no grounds and reasonings were given regarding the assessment of the compensation of Rs. One lac paid to the respondent No.1, the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal (respondent No.2) for giving reasons in respect of the calculation of the compensation to be paid to the petitioner in lieu of reinstatement and it was further observed to the following manner: ....and in this connection, the Labour Court Shall take into consideration all the relevant facts, including the date of employment of the petitioner, nature of service, salary which was last drawn by him and the salary which should be drawn by him on his date of superannuation and all other relevant factors, and shall thereafter, Fix the amount of compensation to be paid to the petitioner. However, the amount of compensation to be so fixed by the Labour Court, should not be less than the amount already awarded by it.

(3.) In view of the order, the matter was remanded back before the respondent No.2 and after hearing both the parties, the impugned revised order was passed fixing compensation to the tune of Rs. 5.58 lacs in lieu of re-instatement, back wages etc. and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 4.58 lacs only to the workman after deducting Rs. One lac from the award which had already been paid. This has been challenged in the writ petition.