IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.13537 of 2002
Date of decision:13.10.2009
Varinder Kumar and others ...Petitioners
versus
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda and another.
...Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
----
Present: Mr.Anupam, Singla, Advocate, for the petitioners.
None for the respondent.
----
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ? No.
2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No
----
K.Kannan, J. (Oral)
1. The legal representatives of the deceased workman
challenged the award only in so far as it provided for a compensation of
Rs.45,000/- which according to them, was not adequate. The workman,
during his life time, had sought a reference on the ground that the
termination was illegal. The management sought to justify its action by
contending that the workman had been guilty of misappropriation and
the enquiry constituted after due notice resulted in a finding of guilt. The
workman assailed the finding by stating that against the finding of an
Enquiry Officer Surjit Singh, he had preferred an appeal to the Assistant
Registrar Cooperative Society, Mansa, who by his order dated
28.05.1996, directed the remand of the case and a fresh Enquiry Officer
was directed to be appointed, finding fault with the enquiry conducted by
a person, who was an auditor of the Society. It appears from the records
Civil Writ Petition No.13537 of 2002 -2-
that yet another Enquiry Officer Shri Rajinder Singh Walia had been
appointed as an Enquiry Officer. It was this report on the basis of which
the ultimate punishment was inflicted on the workman terminating his
services.
2. Before the Labour Court when the issue whether the enquiry
had been fair and proper, the report of the Enquiry Officer himself had
not been filed. The management again placed its reliance on the report
of the first officer Surjit Singh and the Labour Court held that after an
order had been passed by the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Society
directing a fresh enquiry to be made by appointment of another Enquiry
Officer, the reliance on the first report was not justified. The Labour
Court, under such circumstance, held that there was no proper enquiry
and there was no ground to justify his termination. However, since the
workman had died at the time of enquiry, the Labour Court only directed
the compensation of Rs.45,000/- within 30 days after the publication of
the award.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the workman’s legal
representatives would contend that, at the relevant time when an order of
termination was made, the workman was drawing a salary of Rs.3,246/-
and his yearly earning was, therefore, about Rs.39,000/-. He had died
on 24.06.2000 and the workman would have, therefore, earned for
another 4 years. The award of Rs.45,000/- amounted to merely a grant of
compensation for just over a year’s wage.
4. I find that the Labour Court had not set out any basis for
determination of the amount. The Labour Court ought to have treated
Civil Writ Petition No.13537 of 2002 -3-
the workman as entitled to be treated as in employment upto the date of
his death. The learned counsel is unable to give me any details as to
whether the amount awarded by the Labour Court was deposited before
the Labour Court or whether the petitioners had been paid the amount
awarded. There was a reference even in the claim statement that the
workman had remained unemployed and that should have been taken by
the Labour Court for consideration of the award of back wages. Taking
his salary to be Rs.3,246/- as contended by the petitioners and providing
for an employment of 4 years, the workman would have earned little
more than Rs.1,50,000/-. The Court had awarded Rs.45,000/- and in my
view, the award of further amount of Rs.1 lakh would meet the ends of
justice. Although the learned counsel sought for payment of interest
from the date of the death itself, I would think, it would be appropriate to
balance the equities of the workmen not having actually worked during
that period and hence not to allow for interest from the date of death or
the date of award but the amount of Rs.1 lakh in addition to the amount
already granted shall be paid to the petitioners within a period of 4
weeks, failing which it shall attract interest of 9% per annum till the date
of payment. The award of the Labour Court is modified to that extent
only and the writ petition is allowed in the above terms. The petitioners
shall be at liberty to pursue the remedy for terminal benefits of the
workmen that they are entitled to before the appropriate forum.
(K.KANNAN)
13.10.2009 JUDGE
sanjeev