Deva Nand Shah vs M/S A.V.I. Plast on 24 May, 2011

            *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                            Date of decision: 24th May, 2011.

+                                  W.P.(C) 2163/2011

%        DEVA NAND SHAH                                          ..... Petitioner
                     Through:             Mr. S.K. Singh, Adv.

                                   Versus

         M/S A.V.I. PLAST                                   ..... Respondent
                        Through:          None.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may                       No.
         be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?                      No.

3.       Whether the judgment should be reported                     No.
         in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The writ petition impugns the award dated 17 th December, 2007 of

the Industrial Adjudicator on the following reference:

“Whether the services of Sh. Deva Nand Shah S/o Sh.
Damodar Shah have been terminated illegally and/or
unjustifiably by the management, and if so, to what sum of
money as monetary relief along with consequential benefits in

W.P.(C)2163/2011 Page 1 of 4
terms of existing laws/Govt. Notifications and to what other
relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this
respect?”

and though holding the termination of services of the petitioner

workman by the respondent employer to be illegal for the reason of being

in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes (I.D.) Act, 1947 but

granting relief only of compensation of `40,000/- to the petitioner

workman.

2. The grievance of the petitioner workman in the writ petition is that

upon the termination having been found to be illegal, the relief of

reinstatement with full back wages ought to have been granted. The

counsel for the petitioner workman has argued that even if compensation

were to be awarded, it should have been proportionate to the long time of

six years for which the reference remained pending and the long time of

about seven years from the date of the termination till the date of the

award.

3. It is not as if the Industrial Adjudicator has not considered all the

aforesaid aspects or has arbitrarily held the petitioner workman to be not

W.P.(C)2163/2011 Page 2 of 4
entitled to the relief of reinstatement or has arbitrarily assessed the

compensation at `40,000/-. The Industrial Adjudicator has based his relief

on various factors including that the petitioner workman had rendered only

about ten months of service with the respondent employer; the brief period

of service rendered in comparison to the time after which the award was

made published; the reinstatement being not appropriate for the said

reason. Similarly, the amount of compensation was fixed taking into

account the services rendered of ten months and last drawn wages of

`2,500/- per month.

4. I have enquired from the counsel for the petitioner workman at to

what according to the petitioner workman should have been the measure of

damages. All that the counsel for the petitioner workman is able to

contend is that the compensation should have been more and is highly

insufficient. Even in the writ petition there are no pleadings in this regard.

5. I am of the opinion that the discretion exercised by the Industrial

Adjudicator in this regard as to the relief, cannot be interfered with in

exercise of powers of judicial review unless found to be perverse or

W.P.(C)2163/2011 Page 3 of 4
unreasonable considering the facts or being arbitrary. None of the said

criteria is found in the present case.

6. There is no merit in the writ petition; the same is dismissed. No

order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
(JUDGE)
MAY 24, 2011
Bs..

W.P.(C)2163/2011 Page 4 of 4