Ravi R. Tripathi, J.@mdashThe matter was kept today for learned advocate Mr Bukhari for the Petitioner to take instructions with regard to enhancement suggested by the learned advocate for the Respondent-management.
1.1. Learned advocate Mr Bukhari submitted that the amount suggested with enhancement comes to Rs. 1,20,000/- which, according to him, is not reasonable. He submitted that if the amount is made reasonable that will serve the ends of justice and will bring immediate relief to the Petitioner. As such, he is out of job since 2001 and dismissal is nothing but an economic death penalty from which necessary relief is required to be given to the Petitioner, more particularly, when the learned Judge of the Labour Court has specifically recorded that the management is not able to prove the charge levelled against the Petitioner-workman. The matter requires consideration.
2. Rule. Learned advocate Mr Thakker waives service of Rule for the Respondent. At the request of the learned advocate for the Petitioner, the matter is taken up for final hearing today to which the learned advocate for the Respondent has no objection.
3. Taking into consideration the facts of the case, more particularly, the factum of 18 years service put in by the Petitioner-workman and the fact of he having become disabled while in service at Vapi Railway Station when he met with an accident wherein his right hand is amputated from the shoulder and subsequent to that accident he had other physical problems whereby his duty was required to be made light but as is the case of the Petitioner-workman duty was not made sufficiently light so as to make him comfortable in the working.
3. The learned advocate for the Petitioner invited attention of the Court to page No. 22 of the petition, internal page-10 of the Award where in later part of paragraph 11 factum of having suffered disability on account of accident is mentioned. The certificate of physical disability is on record being mark 24/2. The learned advocate for the Petitioner also invited attention of the Court to para 15 wherein the learned Judge has recorded that the management is not able to bring him the guilt and that being so, the Petitioner-workman is entitled for reinstatement and also backwages.
4.1. The learned advocate for the Petitioner submitted that but thereafter the learned Judge has committed an error when he decided that granting of reinstatement and backwages is not the demand of the facts of the case and it will be appropriate to award lump sum compensation in lieu thereof. The learned advocate for the Petitioner submitted that while determining the amount of lump sum compensation, the learned Judge has committed further error as he arrived at a figure of Rs. 80,000/- only. Learned advocate for the Petitioner relied upon a decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the matter of Management of Aurofood Private Ltd. v. S Rajulu reported in (2008) 14 SCC 608 wherein the Hon''ble Apex Court was pleased to award Rs. 10 lakhs as compensation as full and final settlement with respect to the entire claim. The learned advocate for the Petitioner submitted that the Learned Counsel appearing for the management before the Hon''ble Apex Court had shown willingness to pay Rs. 5 lakhs towards compensation package which was not accepted by the Hon''ble Apex Court and amount of Rs. 10 lakhs was awarded.
4.2 The learned advocate for the Petitioner submitted that in the present case the Petitioner joined the services as peon on 1.10.1983 and being satisfied of his hard work he was promoted to the post of Assistant Clerk on 14.10.1993. But thereafter that on 10.7.1997 he met with unfortunate accident at Vapi Railway Station and suffered disability, as stated hereinabove. The learned advocate for the Petitioner submitted that a reasonable amount ought to have been granted by the learned Judge of Labour Court, but as he has failed to do so it is now required to be granted by this Court so as to see that substantial justice is done to him.
5. Learned advocate Mr Thakker for the Respondent-management relied upon two decisions of the Hon''ble Apex Court, one in the matter of U.P. State Electricity Board v. Laxmi Kant Gupta reported in 2009 LLR 1 and Anr. in the matter of Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic) Bhopal v. Santosh Kumar Seal and Ors. reported in 2010 LLR 677. The learned advocate for the Respondent-management invited attention of the Court to letter dated 22.9.2001, which is written by the Petitioner-workman to the Works Manager wherein he has stated that he be granted ''pardon'' taking into consideration the fact that his children are very young and the Petitioner-workman has to shoulder the responsibility of his mother and father. The learned advocate for the Respondent also invited attention of the Court to para-10 of cross-examination of the Petitioner-workman, wherein the workman has stated that he has not misappropriated any amount but on account of burden of work and on account of his physical disability certain entries were missed in the register and for such mistake of common nature, he is awarded the maximum punishment of dismissal.
5.1. The learned advocate for the Respondent-management also invited attention of the Court to paragraph 11 of the Award, relevant part on page No. 22, internal page-10, wherein it is noted that the workman had stated that the disability suffered by the Petitioner-workman was not on account of any work of the Company.
6. Taking into consideration the rival submissions made by the learned advocates appearing for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the amount which is awarded by the learned Judge by way of lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement and backwages is too meagre. By any standard, this amount cannot be said to be reasonable amount. It is on record that the charge levelled against the Petitioner-workman was not proved, may be on account of technicalities. The amount awarded by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the matter of Management of Aurofood Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is Rs. 10 lakhs, but then that was the amount awarded in the matter of workman who was working as a packer and who had put in 20 years service. So even when such amount is not awarded in this case at least the amount awarded by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the matter of Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic) Bhopal (supra) which is Rs. 40,000/- to a workman, who had put in only 2 to 3 years of service can certainly be taken into consideration. In the present case, the workman was regularly appointed, permanent workman, who had put in 18 years of service, requires to be awarded an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs, which cannot be said to be unreasonable. This Court is of the opinion that taking into consideration the totality of the case, it will be appropriate if the award is modified qua the amount of lump sum compensation is concerned. Instead of Rs. 80,000/-, the Respondent-management is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs, that will serve the ends of justice.
7. Accordingly, this petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent and the amount awarded by the learned Judge of Labour Court by way of lump sum compensation is increased to Rs. 3 lakhs retaining the rest of the contents of the award as it is. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.8. At this juncture, learned advocate Mr Bukhari for the Petitioner requests that ifthe management can be directed to deposit this amount within stipulated period.
9. The request is reasonable. The Respondent is directed to pay by an account payee cheque drawn in the name of Petitioner-workman or deposit this amount as early as possible, but not later than 30th November 2011.
