Jai Ram vs Management of Sona Fashions Pvt. Ltd.

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.—The Petitioner workman impugns the award dated 10th November, 2003 of the Industrial Adjudicator on the following reference:

Whether the services of Sh. Jai Ram 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?

and though holding the existence of relationship of employer and employee between the Petitioner workman and the Respondent employer and though further holding that the Respondent employer had terminated the services of the Petitioner workman on 21st March, 1998 without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and hence illegally and unjustifiably but granting the relief of lump-sum compensation of Rs. 60,000/- only to the Petitioner workman.

This petition was filed in the year 2008 i.e. after nearly five years from the award. Notice of the petition was issued on the plea of the counsel for the Petitioner workman that considering that the Petitioner workman had been in employment since the year 1991, the compensation of Rs. 60,000/- was meager. The Respondent employer was got served with the notice of the petition only for 5th August, 2011 when the counsel for the Respondent employer appeared. It was enquired on that date whether the amount of Rs. 60,000/- awarded by the Industrial Adjudicator had been received by the Petitioner workman. The answer was in the negative. It was further enquired whether the Respondent employer had challenged the award. The answer was again in the negative. The counsel for the Respondent employer was unable to explain as to why the award amount had not been paid till now. In the circumstances, the Director of the Respondent employer was directed to appear before this Court in person for today along with a bank draft in favour of the Petitioner workman for the award amount together with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of the award and till the date of payment.

Today, inspite of passover none has appeared for the Respondent. It appears that the Respondent employer wants to avoid payment of the award amount also.

The counsel for the Petitioner workman has stated that the award does not even grant any interest to the Petitioner workman and the Petitioner workman would be satisfied if the award is modified by awarding interest as already directed at 10% per annum on the award amount from the date of the award and till the date of payment and the amount is paid immediately. He confirms that the award amount has not been paid as yet.

The award to the extent, it does not grant any interest on the award amount from the date of the award till the date of payment, is indeed found to be erroneous. It is generally found that there is long delay between the date of the award and the date of the payment and unless interest for such period is awarded, the amount awarded, by the date of payment, owing to inflation may not have the value which the Industrial Adjudicator intended it to have.

The request of the Petitioner workman is therefore found to be reasonable. Even otherwise the conduct of the Respondent employer of not paying the award amount inspite of having not challenged the award and inspite of direction of this Court on 5th August, 2011 is found to be deplorable.

The award of the Industrial Adjudicator is accordingly modified to the extent of granting future interest at 10% per annum from the date of award and till the date of payment on the awarded amount.

The petition is disposed of. The Respondent employer is directed to, within two weeks of the demand of the Petitioner workman along with a copy of this order, pay the amount of Rs. 60,000/- together with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of the award and till the date of payment to the Petitioner workman, failing which the authorities i.e. the Labour Commissioner and the District Collector are directed to forthwith have the amount recovered as arrears of land revenue from the Respondent employer. For the failure of the Respondent employer to comply with the directions contained in the order dated 5th August, 2011, the Respondent is also burdened with costs of Rs. 15,000/- payable to the Petitioner workman along with amount aforesaid, failing which the same shall also incur interest at the rate of 10% per annum from this date till the date of payment.