PARAM SUKH Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT URMED AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT intra -court appeal has been preferred against order of the ld. Single Judge dt. 26/08/2011.

(2.) THE brief facts culled out from the record are that the appellant -workman served the respondent -employer as Class IV since August, 1988 and as alleged by him, without any justification, his services were dispensed with w.e.f. 14/01/1993 and finally the industrial dispute was referred by the Appropriate Government for adjudication vide its notification dt. 14/02/2003. Pursuant thereto, statement of claim was filed by the appellant -workman and after the written statement was filed by the employer and after adjudication of the dispute, the Labour Court finally answered the reference vide its award dt. 19/04/2005 holding the termination of the appellant -workman w.e.f. 14/01/1993 to be void and in violation of Sec. 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and held him entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service alongwith 30% of back wages and that came to be challenged by the respondents in a writ petition before the ld. Single judge. However, the ld. Single Judge confirmed the fact that the workman had worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months of alleged termination and finding of being in violation of Sec. 25 -F of the Act, 1947 and in logical corollary, the workman was to be reinstated in service with back wages. However, the ld. Single Judge, taking note of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Incharge Officer Vs. Shankar Shetty: : 2010 (9) SCC 126, while confirming the finding of the Labour Court with regard to violation of Sec. 25 -F of the Act, 1947, considered it appropriate to modify the award of the Labour Court dt. 19/04/2005 and directed the respondents to pay lump -sum compensation of Rs. 50,000/ - to the appellant -workman in lieu of reinstatement.

(3.) COUNSEL for the appellant -workman submits that while awarding compensation in lieu of reinstatement, the ld. Single Judge has not taken into consideration the facts & circumstances of the instant case and of Incharge Officer Vs. Shankar Shetty (supra) on which reliance was placed and submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court in its later judgment rendered in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Bhuramal:, (2014) 7 SC -C 177 wherein the workman had worked for two years, the Apex Court was of the view that the workman deserves to be entitled at least a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/ - in lieu of reinstatement.