RADHA KRISHSAN SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard petitioner in person. The instant intra-court appeal has been filed against order of ld. Single Judge dt. 5th March, 2014.

(2.) The facts in brief, which are relevant for the purpose of disposal of the appeal are that appellant was appointed as daily wage Munshi on 13th October, 1978 with Urban Improvement Trust, Kota. A criminal case was registered against him for offence U/Sec. 467, 468 & 420 IPC at Police Station, Dadabari, Kota with the allegation that he forged the title documents and tried to illegally trespass over the land of some one else. The respondents terminated his service on 1st July, 1984. Against the order of termination reference was made before the Labour Court vide notification dtd. 19.6.2009 after such an inordinate delay. The Labour Court after taking note of material on record was of the view that there was violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, but in view of inordinate delay between the date of termination and date of making reference instead of directing reinstatement, granted him a lump sum compensation of Rs. 15,000/-. The award came to be challenged by way of filing writ petition and the ld. Single Judge after taking note of the material, which came on record has affirmed the finding of the ld. Labour Court regarding violation of Section 25-F in terminating the services of the appellant. However, as regards compensation, the ld. Single Judge in lieu of reinstatement enhanced the compensation from Rs. 15000/- to Rs. 2,00,000/- to the workman/appellant, which was to be paid within three months from the date of production of copy of the judgment before the respondents, failing which, he may be entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. for the period of delay.

(3.) The appellant submits that once the finding of the Labour Court has been confirmed by the ld. Single Judge that there was violation of Sec. 25-F of the Act of 1947, the action of the respondents is void as he is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service along with back wages as a normal rule. The ld. Labour Court awarded him lump sum compensation of Rs. 15000/- in lieu of reinstatement and the ld. Single Judge enhanced the compensation instead of Rs. 15000/- to Rs. 2,00,000/-, but still committed an error in not reinstating the appellant after the finding of ld. Labour Court stands affirmed regarding violation of Sec. 25-F of the Act of 1947. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi v. Hindalco Industries Ltd. (Civil Appeal Nos. 4883-4884 of 2014 decided on 25.4.2014), R.M. Yellati v. Assistant Executive Engineer, 2006 AIR(SC) 355 and Smt. Protima Sen v. Beney Bhushan Sen, 1972 4 SCC 205.