Indian Red Cross Society, Jaipur vs Shri Abdul Rab son of Shri Abdul Latif

These are cross-appeals.

The Indian Red Cross Society, Jaipur had led a

challenge to the award dated January 7, 1992, holding

retrenchment of the workman to be in violation of Section 25F of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and reinstatement with back

wages being ordered.

Deciding the writ petitions filed by the Indian Red Cross

Society by the impugned order dated February 14, 2006, the

learned Single Judge has noted that the post was abolished.

Noting that the retrenchment compensation was credited to the

account of the workman after two days of the retrenchment, the

learned Single Judge has directed that lump-sum compensation in

the sum of Rs.60,000/- would suffice. Noting that Rs.10,000/- has

been paid to the workman, the direction was to pay the remaining

sum of Rs.50,000/-.

Learned counsel for the Indian Red Cross Society urges

that the award had to be set-aside on account of fact that the

President of the Society deposed that the cheque in lieu of

compensation was tendered to the workman along with the order

of retrenchment dated October 20, 1984. Since workman did not

receive the cheque, next day being a bank holiday, the money was

deposited in the account of the workman.

Having perused the award and the evidence led, we

find that the save and except the President of the Indian Red

Cross Society deposing to said fact of having tendered the

retrenchment compensation to the workman, there is no other

evidence.

Concededly, the person who tendered evidence as the

President of the Indian Red Cross Society was not the President of

the Society when the order dated October 20, 1984 was passed.

He had no personal knowledge. In fact, the affidavit by way of

evidence filed by him shows that he was deposing to the facts

based on the relevant record. No relevant record was proved to

show that the retrenchment compensation was tendered.

In view of the fact that the post in question was

abolished and the retrenchment was as a consequence thereof,

noting that the retrenchment compensation was deposited in the

account of the workman after two days, we find no infirmity in the

impugned-order passed by the learned Single Judge, which

balances equities.

While dismissing both the writ appeals, we note that

Rs.50,000/- which was to be paid to the workman as per the

impugned-order ought to be within 30 days. The amount has not

been paid.

We therefore direct that Rs.50,000/- may now be paid

with interest @8% p.a. from the date of the impugned-order till

the amount is tendered.

No costs.