Prahlad Bhagat vs The Presiding Officer

G.S. Sandhawalia, J.—The challenge, in the present writ petition, is to the award dated 18.2.2014 (Annexure P3), whereby a sum of Rs. 50,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the workman, which was to be paid within 45 days of the publication of the award, failing which he has been held entitled to the interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the amount is very paltry and the workman has been in litigation since June 1985 from the date his service had been terminated.

Perusal of the paper book would go on to show that the workman was working as an Operator and was drawing a salary of Rs. 590/- per month from 24.5.1981 till June 1985 when his service was terminated. Initially, the Labour Court had declined the reference on the ground that there was a dispute as to when the termination order was passed 8.6.1985 on 25.6.1985. The said award was set aside by this Court vide judgment dated 8.11.2013 (Annexure P2), passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 3292 of 1992 and the matter was remanded back for deciding it afresh on merits. Resultantly, the impugned award has been passed on 18.2.2014.

The Labour Court has found that the petitioner was charge-sheeted on 24.1.1985 and the Enquiry Officer was appointed. The workman did not participate in the enquiry proceedings though notice of the proceedings had been published in the newspaper. An FIR u/s 457 & 380 IPC had also been lodged against him of which he had been acquitted. The finding has been recorded that the Enquiry Officer acted in a fair and proper manner by giving proper notice to the petitioner by way of publication in the newspaper to appear before him and enquiry proceedings could not be termed as improper, unfair and illegal. The workman had also requested for change of Enquiry Officer which was disposed of vide order dated 27.3.1985. However, the Labour Court had given the benefit u/s 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (In short "the Act") on the ground of acquittal and has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- after taking into account that he had only four years of service to his credit and at the time of termination.

Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon various judgments of the Apex Court in Tapash Kumar Paul Vs. BSNL and Another, & Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D. Ed.) and Others, to mention that the amount was paltry. It is a matter of record that the petitioner was only drawing Rs. 590/- per month as a salary in the year 1985.

In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, which has been awarded as compensation to the petitioner by the Labour Court, cannot be held to be inadequate. Rather the Labour Court has been quite generous by holding on one hand that the departmental proceedings were fair and proper and on the other hand exercised the powers u/s 11-A of the Act on the ground that the workman had been acquitted. However, it lost sight of the fact that the standard of proof, which is required in the criminal case is very high as compared to one on the departmental side while granting relief. But since the Management has not come in appeal, therefore, this Court is refrained from commenting on the findings recorded by the Labour Court.

The judgment rendered in Tapash Kumar Paul''s case (supra) only pertains to the case where the order of reinstatement had been passed and back wages had not been granted but compensation of Rs. 20,000/had also been granted. The order of reinstatement had been set aside by the Division Bench of the High Court which was restored by the Apex Court. However, in the present case, the Labour Court has found that a proper procedure has been followed and termination has been made on account of departmental proceedings and therefore, the said judgment is not applicable to the present case.

Similarly, the Apex Court in Jaipur Development Authority Vs. Ram Sahai and Another, had granted a sum of Rs. 75,000/- as compensation instead of reinstatement ordered by the Court below as the matter had been pending from the last 20 years. In the present case, no such relief of reinstatement has been ordered.

Similarly, in Deepali Gundu Surwase''s case (supra), the principles of reinstatement and back wages were laid down and it was held that if it is found that termination was by way of victimization, reinstatement is to be there.

Reliance placed upon a judgment rendered by this Court in Sushil Kapoor Vs. Presiding Officer, would also be of no basis since in the said case Rs. 3,00,000/- was awarded as compensation keeping in mind that the workman was working as a Senior Chemist and was being paid Rs. 6,800/-.

In such circumstances, the award passed by the Labour Court is not open to scrutiny under Article 226 of the Constitution of India under the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. Keeping in view the settled principles laid down in Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and Others, wherein it has been held that where the Tribunal has acted illegally in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it and decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to the principles of natural justice, this Court would interfere. The error of law has to be apparent on the face of the record and it has to be manifestly clear that the conclusion of law recorded by the Tribunal is on an obvious misinterpretation of the relevant statutory provisions or in ignorance of the same. Thus, what can be corrected is an error of law, which should be of such a character which is apparent on the face of the record and if the statutory provision is capable of two constructions and one of it had been adopted by the Tribunal, it may not be desirable to correct the same by way of writ of certiorari.

Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed, in limine.