AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Alok Singh, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Appellants and perused the record.
On 24.3.2009, this Court passed order as under:
This appeal has been preferred by the management against order of the learned single Judge upholding the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court.
The Labour Court held that the workman had rendered 15 years of service prior to termination of his services on the ground that he refused to receive letter of transfer. Stand of the workman was that he was required to work on most dangerous machine with M/s Orient Fans with whom he had no relationship of master and servant. The Labour Court held that though ex-parte inquiry could not be held to be unfair, the punishment was disproportionate to the charge, having regard to the fact that no training was imparted to the workman for operating the machine he was required to operate and that he had clean past record.
In view of finding of the Tribunal/Labour Court that the workman had not been imparted training for operating the machine which he was asked to operate, we do not find prima facie case for interfering with the finding that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the misconduct alleged.
Learned Counsel for the management submitted that award of compensation of Rs. 6 lacs in lieu of reinstatement and backwages was excessive. If he is to be awarded 100% backwages, even then the amount would be about 3 lacs at the rate of last wages drawn. The award could be justified only if backwages include further increments, terminal benefits and compensation in lieu of reinstatement which may not be called for in the light of judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. Vs. Uttam Manohar Nakate, , Hombe Gowda Edn. Trust and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, , J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal and Anr. 2007 (2) SCT 79, Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. N.B. Naravade 2005 (2) SCT 236, Employers Management West Bokaro Colliery of TISCO Ltd. v. Concerned Workman Ram Pravesh Singh 2008 (1) SCT 778, U.B. Gadhe and Ors. v. G.M. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Pvt. Ltd. 2007(4) SCT 458, M.D., Balasaheb Desai Sahakari S.K. Ltd. Vs. Kashinath Ganapati Kambale, and judgments of this Court in Directorate, State Transport Punjab, Chandigarh v. Kulwant Singh and Anr. 2007 (4) SCT (P&H) 529, High Polymer Laboratories v. Jagdish Chand and Anr. 2007 I LLJ 601.
Admitted.
In the meanwhile, there will be stay of impugned award, subject to payment of 50% of the amount within two months from today.
Undisputedly, the amount has been paid as directed by this Court vide order dated 24.3.2009. Since the workman has received compensation in lieu of the reinstatement in the light of order dated 24.3.2009, order impugned in the appeal cannot stand in the eye of law.
Appeal stands disposed of setting aside order of learned Single Judge, and order passed by this Court on 24.3.2009 is made absolute.