AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Madan B. Lokur, A.C.J.
The Appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 20th October, 2009 passed by a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 503/2009.
The Appellant had joined the services of Respondent No. 2 as a Junior Engineer (Electrical) on 31st October, 1981 in Delhi. Two years later, on 10th November, 1983 he was transferred to Korba (Madhya Pradesh). The Appellant challenged his transfer by filing a suit for a permanent injunction, which was granted ex parte by the then Sub- Judge, First Class, Delhi. On 7th December, 1983, the services of the Appellant were terminated by Respondent No. 2 apparently without holding any departmental inquiry. The services of another workman Ajay Kumar were also simultaneously terminated.
The Appellant challenged the termination of his services by raising an industrial dispute while Ajay Kumar filed a writ petition which eventually came to be decided by the Supreme Court in Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. Ajay Kumar, . In that case, the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of Ajay Kumar on the ground of loss of confidence but awarded him Rs. 15 lakhs compensation as full and final settlement of all claims.
Insofar as the Appellant is concerned, as mentioned above, he raised an industrial dispute which was eventually adjudicated by an Award dated 10th September, 2008. It is not necessary to go into the reasons for the delay in disposal of the industrial dispute. Suffice it to say that the Labour Court held that the termination of the services of the Appellant were not in accordance with law. On the question of relief to be granted, the Labour Court took into consideration the fact that the Appellant was apparently gainfully employed (at least for some time) in Bangkok and when he came back to India on transfer of residence, he paid customs duty of Rs. 1.58 lakhs as revealed from his passport. The Labour Court also took into consideration the fact that the Appellant had apparently filed a false affidavit to the effect that he was not gainfully employed after his dismissal from service and that proceedings for perjury had been initiated against him by the Registrar General of this Court u/s 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Taking these facts into account, the Labour Court awarded to the Appellant a lump-sum amount of Rs. 2 lakhs as full and final settlement of all his claims.
Feeling aggrieved by the Award dated 10th September, 2008, the Appellant preferred a writ petition in this Court which came to be dismissed by the impugned order.
Before us, learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that since Ajay Kumar had been awarded an amount of Rs. 15 lakhs as compensation in lieu of reinstatement, the Appellant should also be awarded a commensurate amount. In our opinion, it would not be appropriate for us to substitute our view on the matter for the opinion expressed by the Labour Court as well as by the learned Single Judge. As mentioned above, what weighed with the Labour Court while awarding Rs. 2 lakhs as compensation was the fact that the Appellant was apparently gainfully employed in Bangkok and that he had failed to disclose this. On the contrary, the Appellant had taken a false stand as a result of which proceedings for perjury were initiated against him and they are still said to be pending. Since the Appellant did not come out with the true and correct picture, the Labour Court had no option but to make its own assessment of the amount of compensation that should be awarded to the Appellant. The Labour Court considered various judgements of this Court as well as the decision of the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar and other cases as well and came to the conclusion that compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs would meet the ends of justice. This view was upheld by the learned Single Judge.
Given the facts of the case, we do not see any reason to take a different view from that already expressed by the Labour Court and by the learned Single Judge. There is no merit in this appeal. Dismissed.