AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Justice Deepak Gupta, J.
CMP No. 1343 of 2010
Application allowed and disposed of. Amended memo of parties already on record.
LPA No. 178 of 2007
On 14.5.2010 this Court passed the following order:-
After going through paras No. 17 to 21 of the award, we find that the workmen in the case before us had completed more than 500 days even on 31.5.1987 as on cut of date fixed by the appellants-Board for work charged status. The contention of the appellants is that it was a one time affair and is applicable to those workmen who were in service on 31.5.1987. Even assuming for argument sake, if we accept that contention also, it is evident from the evidence available on record that on 31.5.1987 the workmen had completed more than 500 days and in which case they should have conferred work charged status as on that date. Why it was not conferred we do not know. There is no satisfactory explanation. It has also come on record that the workmen have been continued in service during 1987 and 1988. Though, this Court by an order dated 1.4.2010 had directed the appellants to file an affidavit as to the consequences of the conferment of work charged status on a workman as on 31.5.1987, in the affidavit, the appellants has taken the stand that such benefit would not be available to the workmen. We are afraid that this stand cannot be appreciated in view of what we have stated above since evidently on 31.5.1987 the workmen had completed more than 500 days, owing to the total working days they had worked out as we have seen from para-17 to 21 of the award.
We find from the age of the workmen that it may not be reasonable to order reinstatement. A one time settlement, in full and final settlement of all claims by liquidates of amount of compensation would be ideal for both the parties. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and have gone through the records. In view of the consequences that would follow on conferment of work charged status, it was fairly suggested that an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- per workman would be the ideal compensation. The parties seek time to take instructions. Post on 15.6.2010.
The Court was prima facie of the view that instead of ordering reinstatement, some amount be paid to the workmen. Hence it was suggested that amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- per workman be paid by the Punjab State Electricity Board.
Mr. Anand Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants, has placed on record communication between him and the Board and has filed an application stating that the Board is ready to pay this amount to each of the workman.
The alleged retrenchment took place in the year 1988, the dispute was raised in 1999. The Tribunal passed its award in the year 2005. The learned Single Judge passed judgment in the year 2007 and now we are in the year 2012 i.e. more than 23 years have expired. The workmen have not worked for so may years and some of the workmen are on the verge of retirement.
Keeping in view the earlier order passed by the Division Bench of this Court wherein it has been specifically held that the proper relief in this case would be to grant lump sum compensation which suggestion has been accepted by the Board and also keeping in view the fact that the workmen have been out of job for many years and have not worked for the Board we are also of the opinion that the only proper relief which can be granted is lump sum compensation as quantified earlier.
We accordingly dispose of this appeal by modifying the order of the learned Single Judge to the limited extent that instead of reinstatement, each workman shall be entitled to Rs. 3,00,000/-(rupees three lacs only) as lump sum compensation in lieu of their entire claims. The Punjab State Electricity Board now Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. is directed to deposit the amount latest by 29th February, 2012, failing which the Board shall be entitled to pay interest @ 9% p.a.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.