V.K. Shali, J.@mdashThe Petitioner in the present writ petition has challenged the award dated 6th September, 2003 passed by the learned Labor Court in ID No. 76/1988 titled The Management of Trend Setter v. Workman Sh. Salamuddin. By virtue of the aforesaid award, the learned Labor Court though came to the conclusion that the services of the Petitioner were terminated illegally and unjustifiably on 28th June,1986, however, instead of granting the benefit of reinstatement with full back wages, the learned Labor Court granted the Petitioner one time compensation of Rs. 20,000/-.
2. Respondent has not appeared despite the service of notice nor has any counter affidavit been filed.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the record. The challenge laid by the Petitioner to the award is only limited to the extent of quantum of compensation which has been granted to the Petitioner.
4. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that although the learned Labor Court has held the termination of the Petitioner to be illegal and unjustified w.e.f. 28.6.1986 but instead of granting him reinstatement and payment of back wages, the Petitioner has been granted a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation. It was contended that this amount of compensation of Rs. 20,000/- has taken into consideration that the Petitioner had rendered two years of service with the Respondent while as the factum of the unserved portion of the service was not taken into account. It was contended that if that portion of unserved service which was taken into account, the amount of compensation ought to have been much higher.
5. I have considered the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and gone through the impugned award. The learned Labor has taken two factors into consideration in the light of the judgments relied upon. These two factors are essentially the factors that the Petitioner was working as a Tailor with the Respondent and his total tenure of service was little over two years. He was getting wages of Rs. 900/- per month. It had also been proved on record by the Respondent that the unit where the Petitioner was purportedly working had been closed w.e.f. 1st July, 1999. Therefore, in the light of the factum of closure and the factum of the Petitioner having worked only for a period of approximately little over two years as a Tailor and the possibility of the Petitioner being unemployed even for the period from the date of alleged illegal termination till the award was passed, the learned Labor Court had granted a compensation of Rs. 20,000/-.
6. This Court feels that the basis of arriving at compensation by the learned Labor Court cannot be found fault with. All these three factors are tantamounting to fair factors relevant in assessing compensation.
7. The total quantum of service rendered by the Petitioner was very short one. The wages were just Rs. 900/- and he was a skilled worker as a Tailor who are always in great demand. Therefore, even though the learned Labor Court came to a conclusion that the termination of the Respondent /workman was illegal, it is highly improbable that even after termination, the Respondent/workman must have remained unemployed. The amount of compensation, which has been paid to the Petitioner is Rs. 20,000/-, which is almost equal to two years wages. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the quantum of compensation which has been granted is just, fair but is also reasonable. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has not been able to cite any judgment wherein even in a case of this nature, the portion of service for which the workman would have continued to work would be a ground to be taken into account to pay the compensation. This Court, therefore, feels that there is no illegality or perversity in the award passed by the learned Labor Court. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed and the award of the learned Labor Court is upheld.
No order as to costs.
