AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Kuldeep Tiwari, J
The petitioner/workman, has thrown a challenge to order dated 10.12.2024 (Annexure P-1), passed by the respondent No.2, vide which the claim of thee petitioner/workman for re-insttatement was declined despite, her termination from the services, were helld to be illegal, and a meaggre compensatioon of Rs.15,000/- was awarded.
Learned counsel for the petiitioner submits that once it iss a positive finddings by the learned Tribunal concerned, to the effect, that services of the petitiooner/workman, were illegally terrminated, then the learned Tribunal concerned, ought to have allowed the reference in totality, and passed the award directing re-instatement of the petitiooner. He further draws the attentiion of this Court towards the writteen statement, filed by the respondent/Management, which was also considered by the learned Tribunal that they are still ready and willing to allow the workman to rejoin her services. He finally submits that even thhe compensation awarded to the petitioner/workman, was inadequate, despiite the fact that the petitioner has worked for 02 years and 07 months, with thee respondent/Management.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/Management, submitted that theere is no dispute with regard to the fact that theere is infraction of Section 25((f) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He, further admitted the fact that the petitioner/workman, has workked for 02 years and 07 months, and her services were terminated, way back in the year 2019, therefore, the learned Tribunal concerned, has rightly not passsed the award regarding re-instatement of the petitioner/workman, and an adequate compensation was awarded to her.
This Court has considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties concerned, and has gone through the available record.
It is trite law that in case, termination of services of workman was found to be illegal, on account of infraction of Section 25(f) of the ID Act, the re-instatemeent is not automatic. The Court is required to take into consideratioon all the facts and circumstancees of each case, before passing the order of re-instatement. Reference, in this reegard, can be made to the judgment delivered byy the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.13834 of 2024, titled ‘Mahaarashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs. Mahadeo Krishhna Naik’, decidded on 14.02.2025.
On the anvil of above legal prepositions, this Court has also examined thhe instant case. The services of the petitioner were terminated, way back in the year 2019, and she has worked merely for 02 years and 07 months, therefore, thhis Court, is of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal concerned, has rightly not passed the award regarding re-instatement of the petitioner/workman. However, the coompensation awarded to the petitioner/workman, SINE DUBIO is meagre. The petitioner/workman has more than 02 yeaars of service in her credit. Thee Division Bench of this Court in LPA-1203-2021, titled ‘Sukhbir Singh versus State of Punjab and others’ decided on 01.03.2023, has already held thaat the workman is entitled for eaach preceding year, to the tune of Rs.50,0000/-. This aspect has further beeen considered, and the compensation was enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-, for eaach completed year, by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the judgment passed in CWP No.111057 of 2001, TITLED ‘State of Haryana vs. Surjeet and another’ decided on 30.07.2025. Therefore, this Court, modifies the impugned awaard, to the extennt, that the petitioner/workman is entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-, which shall be paidd to her, within a period of three months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Consequently, the instant writ petition is disposed of.