Laxmi Kant Jha vs Post and Telegraphs Department

S.N. Aggarwal, J.—This writ petition filed by the workman (the petitioner herein) is directed against an award dated 23.05.2008 passed by

the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court awarding an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to him in lieu of his claim for

reinstatement and back wages.

Heard.

Mr. Anuj Aggarwal learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relying upon four judgments of the Supreme Court in (i) Management

of Agro Food Private Limited v. S. Rajulu (decided on 03.04.2008; SLP (Civil) No. 4735/2006); (ii) U.P. State Electricity Board v. Laxmi Kant

Gupta (decided on 26.09.2008; SLP (Civil) No. 10437/2006); (iii) Rajasthan Lalit Kala Academy v. Radhey Shyam; JT 2008 (9) SC 311 and

(v) Talwara Corporation Credit and Service Society Limited v. Sushil Kumar (decided on 01.10.2008; SLP (Civil) No. 336/2005) contends that

the compensation amount of Rs. 50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal below is quite inadequate and for that reason, according to him, the impugned

award suffers from perversity.

I have considered the judgments referred and relied upon by the petitioner''s counsel but in my opinion, those judgments are not applicable to

the facts of this case. In none of these cases, the workman was appointed as a daily rated workman by way of back door entry. I am of the view

that each case has to be decided on its own merits. In the present case, the petitioner was appointed by the respondent as car driver w.e.f.

17.02.1986 as a daily rated workman at a fixed salary of Rs. 562/- per month. Admittedly no advertisement was issued for filling up the post of

car driver to which the petitioner was appointed. The petitioner admittedly did not make any application for his appointment. His appointment with

the respondent was a back door entry. He had hardly worked for about one year four months as a daily rated workman at a fixed salary of Rs.

562/- when his services were dispensed with by the respondent w.e.f. 17.06.1987. During the period of one year four months the petitioner

worked with the respondent, he hardly got less than Rs. 8,000/- in the entire period from the respondent management towards his wages. Now he

has been awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000/- by the tribunal below which in my view by no means can be said to be inadequate. While

determining the quantum of compensation, the Court has to take into account the nature of appointment, period for which the workman has

worked and also all other related factors. In this case I do not find any perversity in the impugned award of the court below.

For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition which fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.