AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. Pattnaik, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner (workman). He submits, impugned is award dated 1st May, 2019, by which paltry sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was given as lump sum compensation on finding that there had been illegal retrenchment.
He demonstrates from impugned award there was clear finding on violation of provisions under section 25G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On query from Court he submits, prayer of his client is to set aside the award and give him all service benefits that would have accrued to him till he achieved age of superannuation.
Mr. Rout, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of the management. He submits, apart from awarded amount of compensation, retrenchment benefits were paid in full to petitioner. Since petitioner had challenged the award, the compensation amount was not paid. He submits, there should not be interference.
We find from impugned award that one of petitioner’s grievances before the Industrial Tribunal was that the industrial dispute was belatedly acknowledged by the appropriate Government in making the reference. Petitioner had made complaint on 19th September, 2005, when he was about 54 years old. The conciliation failure report is dated 18th February, 2012 and the reference order dated 4th February, 2013. As such, petitioner’s industrial dispute of wrongful retrenchment with claim for reinstatement on back wages appears to have been sealed against him at the time of the reference. We also find some reasoning in impugned award for direction to pay compensation, in the circumstances aforesaid. We reproduce below the direction paragraph from impugned award.
“Taking into consideration all the aforesaid facts, present price index and more over the financial benefit the Second Party would have got, had he been retained in employment till his superannuation, this Tribunal feels it appropriate to award a lump sum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) in favour of the Second Party. The First Party to pay the compensation to the Second Party within a period of two months of the date of publication of the Award in the Official Gazette, failing which it shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum till the amount is realized.”
(emphasis supplied)
On further query from Court Mr. Pattnaik was unable to show us that a person junior to his client continued his service till superannuation. However, there is an implication in the paragraph from impugned order reproduced above. All the facts and circumstances are sufficient for us to direct enhancement of the compensation. More so as also awarded 6 % per annum interest on Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) commenced and is counting from date of impugned award.
We have no doubt that the Tribunal found correctly on facts there was violation of provision in section 25G. We enhance the compensation to Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). Said amount is to be paid to petitioner within four weeks from date, failing which it will carry interest at the rate directed in impugned award, from date of it till payment.
The writ petition is disposed of.
…………………………..