AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. Kameswar Rao, J.—The challenge in this writ petition is to the Recovery Notice dated February 21, 2005 and the award dated March 13, 2001 passed by the Labour court in I.D. No. 341/92, whereby the Labour Court has directed the reinstatement of the respondent No. 3 (''respondent'', in short) with back-wages; and continuity in service. The writ petition has been filed primarily on the ground that the engagement of the respondent as a ''Driver'' was for a short period on trial basis. Since his services were not found satisfactory, his engagement was terminated with full and final settlement.
It is noted from the award dated March 13, 2001 that the evidence of the petitioner-Management was closed on February 12, 2001. In fact, no arguments were advanced on behalf of the petitioner-Management.
The petitioner has tried to explain, non-representation before the Labour Court. Be that as it may, it is noted that the dispute was raised in the year 1992. The alleged termination relates back to the year 1991 the award was passed by the Labour Court in the year 2001. Thereafter, the writ petition was filed only in the year 2005, that too, when a Recovery Notice was issued on February 21, 2005 for an amount of Rs. 2,71,484. The matter remained pending in this Court, since then. On January 31, 2014, on the suggestion of the Court, the parties sought time to seek instructions from their respective clients on the settlement.
Today, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that his client is ready to settle the matter between Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 25,000. On the other hand, Mr. V.K. Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the respondent states that he will leave it for this Court to decide the amount of compensation.
It is not necessary that whenever the termination is held to be bad, reinstatement must follow (Refer to Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic) Bhopal Vs. Santosh Kumar Seal and Others, , Asst. Engineer, Rajasthan Dev. Corporation and Another Vs. Gitam Singh, ). In this case, I find that the petitioner has worked for a very brief period. It is true that he has been pursuing the litigation since the year 1992 i.e. for the last 22 years. In the given facts, (am of the view that an amount of Rs. 40,000 is given to the respondent as compensation in lieu of reinstatement with back-wages and continuity of service. Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection on the payment of Rs. 40,000 as compensation to settle the dispute arising from the award in question.
I order accordingly that the petitioner shall pay to the respondent a sum of Rs. 40,000 within a period of two months as full and final settlement in lieu of re-instatement with back-wages and continuity of service. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
CM No. 5838/2008
In view of the order in the writ petition, this application is dismissed.