Judgment:
V.K. Shali, J.
1. The petitioner in the instant writ petition has challenged the award dated 13th January, 2005 passed by the learned Labour Court No. VIII in ID No. 1126/2000 in the case titled Sh. Paras v. Lovely Ticket Wala, (Aar Kay Printers) only to the limited extent of quantum of compensation which is directed to be paid to the petitioner.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a reference was made by the appropriate government to the learned Labour Court:
Whether the services of Sh. Paras have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management, and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect
3. On the basis of the aforesaid reference, the petitioner filed his statement of claim claiming that he was employed as a Machine Operator for monthly wages of Rs. 3000/- and in 1999 when the petitioner demanded increase in salary, overtime, earned leave and other benefits, the respondent got annoyed and terminated the services of the petitioner illegally and unjustifiably on 3rd August, 1999. A demand notice dated 31st August, 1999 was sent by the petitioner to the respondent but since it did not yield any result, and thereafter, a reference was made to the learned Labour Court.
4. The respondent filed its written statement and contested the claim of the petitioner by raising an objection that there is no relationship of employer and employee between the parties. In addition to this, it was alleged that the petitioner was granted service on the temporary basis and since his work was not satisfactory, therefore, on or about 25th to 27th July 1999, he was asked to leave the service. Further, the petitioner had indulged in acts of misbehavior on or about 25th to 27th July, 1999. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings following issues were framed, namely:
(i) Whether there is no relationship of employer and employee between the parties? OPM
(ii) As per terms of reference.
5. The parties adduced their respective evidence and the learned Labour Court decided both the issues in favour of the petitioner holding that the petitioner was able to establish the relationship of employer and employees between the parties. It was established by him that he had worked for 240 days in a year. The learned Labour Court also came to a finding that the petitioner was getting Rs. 2,400/- and was employed as a Machine Man by the respondent w.e.f. 3rd October, 1993 and his services were not dispensed with in compliance with the Labour Laws, therefore, the termination was held to be illegal and unjustifiable.
6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the quantum of compensation of Rs. 45,000/- which has been awarded by the learned Labour Court is grossly inadequate. It has been urged that the petitioner has worked with the respondent for almost six years, and therefore, even from the date of termination i.e. 3rd August, 1999 when his services are terminated till the time of award i.e. on 13th January, 2005 if the amount of compensation is calculated @ of Rs. 3000/- per month, it would turn out to be Rs. 1,97,000/-. As against this, the learned Counsel for the respondent has not able to refute or formulate any proposition or any yardstick on the basis of which the compensation should be awarded to the petitioner.
8. The petitioner is not able to show any authoritative pronouncement with regard to formula which ought to be followed for calculation of compensation. The same has been done randomly by the learned Labour Court keeping in view the various factors of the case in different reported cases. In the instant case also an amount of Rs. 45,000/- has been awarded to the petitioner which is practically two years salary to the petitioner. The yardstick which has been set up by the petitioner for grant of compensation from the date of termination till the date of the award does not seem to be a sound basis for giving the compensation payable to the petitioner because his total service with the respondent has been just two years. The quantum of wages, the number of years of service rendered by the petitioner should primarily be the factors which must be considered by the learned Labour Court to decide the compensation. If these factors are taken into consideration then the amount of Rs. 45,000/- which is paid as compensation to the petitioner practically turn out to be the wages calculated @ Rs. 2400/- per month approximately for a period of two years which seems to be just, fair and reasonable. Keeping in view the fact that he has served the respondent for two years or so, this direction for payment of compensation has been made by the learned Labour Court below. Further, once the discretion is exercised under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the learned Labour Court below, it will not be appropriate and justified for the writ court to sit as Court below and re-appreciate the compensation passed by the learned Labour Court, unless and until some perversity is shown in the order.
9. Further, there are reported case where the Apex Court has given as low compensation as Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 30,000/-. In the facts of those case, reliance in this regard is placed on Nagar Mahapalika v. State of U.P. : (2006)IILLJ748SC , Branch Manager, M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd. and Anr. v. S.C. Pandey : (2006)IILLJ215SC and I.T.C. Monghyr, Bihar v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patna, Bihar : (1978)IILLJ354SC .
10. For the foregoing reasons mentioned above, I do not find any illegality, perversity or any violation of Rule and regulation of principle of natural justice, and therefore, the writ petition is dismissed and the validity of the payment of compensation of Rs. 45,000/- is upheld. The respondent is directed to pay the aforesaid compensation of Rs. 45,000/- within a period of four weeks from today, failing which an interest @ 7% per month be paid to the petitioner.
No order as to costs.