The isntant writ petition has been filed for the quashing of the award dated 11.3.2014 which was passed by the Labour Court, Varanasi. Further relief for the quashing of the order of termination dated 1.11.2000 was also prayed for. The petittioner thereafter, as a consequential prayer has also prayed for the relief of his reinstatment with continuity of service and all consequential benefits.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that after the petitoner was appointed as an Accountant on 1.11.1993, initially temporarily and thereafter on a permanent basis, his services were terminated on 1.11.2000. Thereafter, when the petitioner despite various requests and representations was not allowed to join service, he raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court on 18.2.2002. The reference was to the following effect :
"Whether the termination of the services of workman Sri Sadanand Singh S/o Late Bhai Ram vide order dated 01.11.2000 by the employers is valid and legal? If not, then whether the workman is entitled for compensation?"
After exchange of pleadings and after the leading of oral evidence an award was pased on 11.3.2014 wherein though termination was found to be illegal reinstatement was denied and only a lump sum compensation was awarded to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitoner has assailed the award so far as it had refused reinstatement on the ground that when it was found that the order of dismissal was illegal then the petitoner should have been reinstated with full back wages. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision reported in 2013 (10) SCC 324 (Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED.) and others) and submitted that reinstatemnt with back wages had to follow if termination was found to be illegal.
Learned counsel for the private respondent no.3, Sri Sunil Tripathi, however, submitted that not in all cases is a workman entitled to reinstatement when an order of termination is found to be bad and relied upon a decision reported in 2017 Law Suit (All) 820 (State Of U.P. Thru' Executive Engineer vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court And Another), Writ Petition No. 20248 of 2014 and submitted that the relevant factors for considering reinstament were (I) Mode and manner of appointment.
(II) Nature of employment.
(III) Length of Service.
(IV) Grounds on which termination was set aside.
(V) The delay in making reference to be seen.
He submitted that in the instant case, the termination had taken place in the year 2000 and the reference was made in the year 2002. The respondent no.3 was a small private organization and no post or vacancy could be left unfilled.
Learned counsel submitted that the post on which the petitoner was working had already been filled up and therefore there was absolutely no question of reinstatement. He further submits that the petitioner was such a person who was an absolute misfit in the organization of the respondent no.3. He was in fact, not liked by the employers and rightly the relief of reinstatement was denied to him.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that since the respondent no.3 which is a private organization and worked wih a very limited number of workers it must have filled up the post on which the petitoner was working. Further in small organizations it is always proper to see that the atmosphere is congenial and the relationship between the employers and employees is not strained. In a small organization even the person whose services were terminated initially finds it difficult to adjust himself upon reinstatement. If the order of termination is set aside by the Court and the petitioner is taken back, egos would clash and it would become difficult for the organization to run.
Under such circumstances, I feel that there is no defect in the award so made. However, looking at the State of the econonmy the amount of Rs. 15,000/- as has been paid as a one time compensation to the petitioner appears to be on the lower side. The compensation, therefore, is being raised to Rs. 1,50,000/-. Since the petitoner must have engaged lawyers for himself and since it has been found that the termination order was wrongly passed, I also award a cost of Rs. 50,000/- to the petitioner towards litigation expenses.
The writ petition is, therefore, partly allowed.
Order Date :- 30.5.2018 Ashish Pd.