Hari Singh vs Deputy Conservator

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner- employee challenging the award dt. 4th May, 2016, whereby the relief of compensation of

Rs. 70,000/- in lieu of reinstatement has been passed. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Labour Court has recorded a finding that the

petitioner had worked from 1st February, 1990 to 31st August, 1993 and as such only Rs. 70,000/- has been awarded as lump-sum compensation.

Counsel submitted that in the award though working of the petitioner was specifically given, however, inadvertently, the total working of the petitioner

has been shown as two years seven months instead of three years seven months. Counsel submitted that this Court as well as the Division Bench in

catena of cases has laid down the principle that if the workman has worked upto one year, he can be awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- towards compensation,

for a period of two years Rs. 1,50,000/- and if workman has worked upto three years, he can be awarded Rs. 3,00,000/-.

Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on an order dt. 31st July, 2018, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Special Appeal Writ

No. 602/2018 (Deputy Conservator of Forests Vs. Mahadev Prasad) and other connected special appeals. The operative portion of the order passed

in the case of Deputy Conservator of Forests Vs. Mahadev Prasad is quoted hereunder:-

“Accordingly, lump sum compensation is awarded to the workmen taking into consideration the period of employment. Therefore, we order that if

a workman has worked upto one year, he is awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation. If a workman had worked upto two years, he is awarded

Rs.1,50,000/-. If a workman has worked upto three years, he is awarded Rs.2,50,000/- and if a workman has worked for more than three years, he is

awarded Rs.3,00,000/-.

With the aforesaid modification in the orders of the learned Single Judge, all the appeals are disposed of. The compensation, as ordered, would be paid

taking into consideration the period of working, as held by the Labour Court in its award. The awards of the Labour Court and the orders of the

learned Single Judge are interfered with the aforesaid. The relief is substituted. The amount of compensation would be paid to the non-appellants-

workmen within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

In the light of the consideration of merit of the case, we have considered the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act by applying criteria

given by the Apex Court in the cases of Chandramani (supra) and N Balakrishnan (supra).

Finding merit in the appeals, we have expressed our view in the preceding paras and taking into consideration the aforesaid, we find reasons to accept

the application for condonation of delay. It is more so when there exist explanation for it. Accordingly, application under section 5 of the Limitation

Act is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.â€​

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner had raised the claim after a delay of more than 4 years from the date of termination

and the Labour Court while passing the award has not committed any illegality in awarding Rs. 70,000/- as lump-sum compensation.

Counsel submitted that working of the petitioner was also not proved, however, the amount of Rs. 70,000/- has already been paid to the petitioner and

as such no interference is required by this Court.

This Court finds that the fact of working of the petitioner from 1st February, 1990 to 31st August, 1993, has been found to be proved by the Labour

Court and accordingly, he has been paid lump-sum compensation of Rs. 70,000/-. This Court finds that award of Rs. 70,000/-, as lump-sum, is not

appropriate and if the petitioner had worked for a period of three years and seven months, he ought to have been awarded a reasonable compensation.

This Court also finds that the Division Bench has structured the payment of compensation on the basis of working of the employee-workman. This

Court finds that the award dt. 4th May, 2016, needs to be modified and further the petitioner is held entitled for total compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/-.

The payment of remaining amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- will be made to the petitioner within a period of five weeks after receipt of certified copy of this

order. The award dt. 4th May, 2016, stands modified and the writ petition is accordingly, allowed.