JUDGMENT
M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. These two appeals arose out of the common judgment passed by learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 20G5/1998(R) and CWJC No. 2222/ 1988(R). In CWJC No. 2065/1988(R), the writ petitioner is the employer namely, M/s. Calcutta Stores Supply Corporation, Ranchi and in CWJC No. 2222/1988(R), the writ petitioner is the employee.
2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.
3. The employee, Kapildeo Singh (hereinafter referred as the petitioner) filed an application before the Labour Court under Section 26 of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act being B.S. Case No. 16/80 alleging inter alia that he was working as sales man for about 16 years for M/s. Calcutta Stores Supply Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) and receiving monthly salary at the rate of Rs. 220/-. Petitioner’s further case was that in May, 1980, a theft took place in the said shop and the appellant was very much doubtful about the involvement of a co-sales man, Laxman Thakur. The appellant was pressurizing the petitioner to give evidence in the case against Laxman Thakur but he denied. The appellant thereafter, stopped taking work from the petitioner stating that his services are no more required. The petitioner therefore challenged his removal from service as illegal and prayed for reinstating him in service.
4. The appellant took the stand that the petitioner was only a casual labour and he was not under the employment of the appellant. The Labour Court after considering the evidence adduced by both the petitioner and the appellant and after hearing them recorded a finding that removal of the petitioner from the service was illegal. However, the Labour Court further came to the conclusion that there was loss of confidence by the employer on the employee and therefore, the order would not be proper. Accordingly, the Labour Court instead of reinstatement, ordered for payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 32,010/-. Both the petitioner and the appellant challenged the said award of the Labour Court by filing aforementioned two writ petitions.
5. Learned Single Judge after re-appreciation of the entire evidences, affirmed the finding recorded by the Labour court regarding dismissal of the petitioner from service. Learned Single Judge also of the view that there was loss of confidence on the employee and therefore compensation was awarded. However, learned Single Judge held that a further sum of Rs. 25,000/- is to be paid to the petitioner by way of compensation.
6. Mr. P.K. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant in L.P.A. No. 83/1998(R) has assailed the impugned award of the Labour Court and the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge mainly on the ground that when illegal dismissal of the petitioner from the service was approved then an order of reinstatement is the only proper and adequate relief. Learned counsel submitted that the compensation in lieu of reinstatement is ordered when the loss of confidence is proved. According to the learned counsel, loss of confidence has neither been completed nor proved by the appellant and therefore courts have committed error of law in awarding compensation.
7. On the other hand, Mr. K.B. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted at after the judgment was passed, the petitioner filed contempt petition for non-payment of the compensation amount being MJC No. 247/98R and the petitioner has been paid more than the amount of compensation awarded by the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge. According to the learned counsel therefore question of reinstatement of the petitioner does not arise.
8. As noticed above, the Labour Court after considering the evidence has come to a finding that there was loss of confidence by the employer and compensation would be appropriate relief that should be given to the petitioner. Learned Single Judge also affirmed the said finding after re-appraisal of the Evidence but enhanced the amount of compensation by directing him to pay Rs. 25,000/-.
9. In view of the finding recorded by the two courts we do not find any strong reason to differ with the finding recorded by the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge. The only question therefore falls for consideration is as to whether a quantum of compensation allowed to the petitioner is adequate and reasonable. The application under Section 26 of the Act was filed in 1988, wherein petitioner’s case was that he was working for the last 16 years on monthly salary of Rs. 220/-. If he could not have been illegally removed from service, he would have continued for a minimum period of 40 years. At best therefore he would have been entitled to continue in service for 24 years. If the petitioner gets the salary of 24 years without any work that would be maximum compensation payable to the petitioner as the petitioner is getting compensation without doing any work. The salary of 24 years at the rates of Rs. 220/- comes to Rs. 63,370/-. Petitioner has already received more than Rs. 55,000/-.
10. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also finding of the two courts that dismissal was illegal, we are, therefore, of the view that the total sum of Rs. 70,000/- would be just and reasonable compensation in lieu of reinstatement in service. Since the petitioner has already been paid more than Rs. 55,000/-, we therefore, direct the appellant to pay a further sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) to the petitioner/appellant towards compensation.
11. We therefore, dismiss L.P.A. No. 88/98R filed by the appellant (employer) and allow L.P.A. No. 83/98R in part. The appellant M/s. Calcutta Stores Supply Corporation is directed to pay a further sum of Rs. 15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand) to the petitioner within 30 days from today.
Harishankar Prasad, J.
12. I agree.