Vijender Kumar v. Labour Commissioner & ANR.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

* Date of Order: December 10, 2018 W.P.(C) 8438/2009 + ....Petitioner Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Advocate VIJENDER KUMAR Through:

Versus

Respondents LABOUR COMMISSIONER & ANR.

Through:

Nemo.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

ORDER

(ORAL) 1.

Impugned Award of IS**" July/..2008 hold that termination of petitioner-workman is unjustified/biit ins;tead of granting reinstatement with back wages, compensation of ^TQsPOO/^in lieu of reinstatement and back wages, has been granted.

2.

Challenge to the impugned Award of 1July, 2008 by petitioner's . counsel is on the ground that petitioner was employed way back in the year 1994 and the allegation against petitioner-workman was of absence from duty, which amounts to misconduct and it does not invite extreme and harsh penalty of termination. It is submitted that petitioner was not gainfully employed elsewhere and so, it is a fit case where reinstatement with full back wages ought to be granted.

3.

Despite service, there is no appearance on behalf of respondent. W.P.(C) 8438/2009 By:AMULYA

\c

4. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Award and the material on record, I find that this petition has been entertained qua back only and, pleadings on back wages are deficient. Supreme Court in wages Management, Hindustan Machine Tools Jjd Vs. Ghanshyam Sharma 2018 see OnLine SC 2254 has reiterated that in such cases, lump compensation instead of reinstatement with back wages, ought to be sum granted. Applying the ratio of Supreme Court's decision in Ghanshyam Sharma (Supra) to the facts of instant case, I find that the quantum of compensation granted is adequate and no case for its enhancement or reinstatement with back wages is made oiit.

This petition is accordingly disposed of while upholding the 5.

impugned Award.

i \ I '

(SUNtLGAUl^) JUDGE * DECEMBER 10, 2018 r 1.^ W.P.(C) 8438/2009