Jagtar Singh vs The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Hisar and Others

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.—The workman has filed the instant Letters Patent Appeal against the order dated 10.9.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (Civil Writ Petition No. 19532 of 2009) filed by the appellant was disposed of and the Award dated 2.4.2007 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar, has been modified to the extent that the compensation awarded to the appellant-workman in lieu of re-instatement has been enhanced from Rs. 35,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-. Though there is delay of 278 days in filing the appeal and the appellant has filed application (CM No. 222-LPA of 2012) for condoning the delay, yet we have heard learned counsel for the appellant on merits.

After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and going through the impugned order as well as the Award dated 2.4.2007, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order. In this case, the appellant was a daily wager and the termination of his services was held to be illegal only on the ground that while terminating his services, the provision of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as Rs. the Act'') was not followed. However, the Labour Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, instead of re-instating the appellant, had awarded compensation of Rs. 35,000/-. The learned Single Judge, on the writ petition filed by the workman, enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs. 1,00,000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that keeping in view the length of service of the appellant-workman, the Labour Court should have re-instated the workman instead of awarding compensation. Undisputedly, the appellant was working on daily wages. A Division Bench of this Court in State of Haryana v. Ishwar Singh and another, 2008 (3) Service Cases Today 788, has held that a daily wage employee even in a case where there is non compliance of the Act and there is violation of Section 25G, is not entitled to re-instatement but would be entitled to compensation. While keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Jaipur Development Authority v. Ram Sahai and another, 2007 (1) RSJ 239, which was relied upon by the Division Bench of this Court in Ishwar Singh''s case (supra) as well as the facts and circumstances of the case, the Labour Court had awarded compensation to the workman, instead of ordering his re-instatement. We are not inclined to interfere in the said order. However, the learned Single Judge, while keeping in view the length of service of the appellant-workman, has enhanced the compensation from Rs. 35,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-, which in our opinion is reasonable and does not require further modification. No merit. Dismissed.