(Aniruddha Bose and Vikram Nath, JJ.)
Civil Appeal No………/2022 [Arising out of Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 11820/2017], decided on September 8, 2022
Manager Jaitsar Karya Vikarya Sahakari Samiti Ltd. _______ Appellant;
V.
Mool Chand ______________________________________ Respondent.
Civil Appeal No………/2022 and Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 11820/2017
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. The present appeal arises out of an industrial dispute which has travelled from the labour Court, to the Single as also the Division Benches of the Rajasthan High Court before reaching this Court. The Industrial Court had found that the respondent was retrenched without adhering to the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and had directed reinstatement of his service with 25% backwages. The employer’s (appellant before us) writ petition against the award was partly allowed by the Single Judge of the High Court. The Reinstatement order was set aside on 18th September 2006 but Rs. 75000/- was directed to be granted as lump-sum payment in lieu of reinstatement. The Single Judge, while directing payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement had examined a series of authorities in which this Court had adopted such a course, including Ratan Singh v. Union of India [(1997) 11 SCC 396]. One of the factors considered by the Single Judge was the lapse of long time between the date of termination and the date of order. The Division Bench has set aside the order of the Single Judge and directed reinstatement of the appellant. This order stands operative now but the respondent has already reached the age of superannuation. Thus, the reinstatement order cannot be implemented now.
4. The Division Bench held that awarding compensation constituted deviation from regular course of directing reinstatement in cases where retrenchment is held to be in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the present case, the respondent has crossed the age of superannuation. Thus compensation becomes inevitable relief. We, however, are of the view that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Single Judge of the High Court to be inadequate. As such we partly allow the appeal. We direct the appellant to pay a further sum of rupees one lakh as retrenchment compensation to the respondent within eight weeks. The impugned order to the extent it, in substance, restored the industrial Court’s order shall stand invalidated.
5. This sum of rupees one lakh is directed to be paid in addition to Rs. 75,000/- (rupees seventy five thousands) which, the learned counsel for the appellant submits, has been paid in the year 2006 itself.
6. No Order as to the costs.
7. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.
———
