Raguvir Synthetics Limited vs Dahyabhai Ranchhodbhai

V. M. Sahai, J.—We have heard Mr. Prabhakar Upadyay, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. D. G. Shukla, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent.

This Intra-Court Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 27.12.2010 of Learned Single Judge passed in Special Civil Application No. 14643 of 2010.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant has urged mainly three points. The first point is that the Appellant has worked only for a period of two years. The other point is that the affidavit has been filed by the Respondent before the Lab our Court after four years he wanted to join the service but he was not permitted to join which was controverted by the Appellant. The third point is that the Labour Court as well as the Learned Single Judge has illegally awarded compensation which is highly excessive and deserves to be quashed and set aside.

So far as the first contention is concerned, we are of the view that we are not required to go into the question as the Labour Court has granted only compensation to the Respondent. So far as the second question whether the compensation is excessive or not is concerned, the Labour Court awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,65,000/-. The Appellant preferred appeal before the Industrial Court wherein compensation was reduced from Rs. 1,65,000/- to Rs. 1,35,000/-. The Appellant challenged the said order before this Court in Special Civil Application No. 14643 of 2010 and this Court found that the order of the Industrial Tribunal is right and no interference is called for.

We are in agreement with the view taken by the Learned Single Judge. The reasoning given by the Learned Single Judge is extracted below:

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having considered the rival submissions in light of the award and judgment passed by the Courts below, the Court is of the view that present petition does not call any interference by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article-227 of the Constitution of India. As per the findings recorded by the Courts below the Respondent has attained the age of more than 60 years. Even after notices are issued by the Petitioner, the Respondent workman has not joined the duty, however, the Petitioner has not allowed the Respondent workman to join. In his affidavit as well as the application the Respondent has given specific reference of Mr. Agrawal who is the owner of the Petitioner establishment. The said fact has not been denied by the Petitioner. Even otherwise looking to the correct date of birth and the retirement age, he would have been entitled to the more compensation awarded by the Labour Court. The Industrial Tribunal has reduced the amount of compensation from Rs. 1,65,000/- to Rs. 1,35,000/- only with a view to strike the balance between the parties and hence it cannot be said that the order passed by the Tribunal is not just and proper. In any case no infirmity is pointed out in the order passed by the Labour Court as well as Industrial Tribunal and hence the same cannot call interference of this Court. The petition is therefore fails and hence dismissed without any order as to costs.

We do not find any reason to take a different view than what has been taken by the Learned Single Judge. We agree with the findings recorded by the Learned Single Judge. This appeal is devoid of any merits and is accordingly dismissed.

Since main appeal is dismissed, no order is required to be passed in Civil Application and the same accordingly stands dismissed.