← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/14626/1999disposed of

Rama Nand v. P.O.Labour Court Etc.

2025-07-23Mr. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP-14626-1999 (O&M) Decided on :23.07.2025 RAMA NAND.

. .Petitioner

Versus

PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT-II FARIDABAD AND ANOTHER . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI PRESENT: Ms. Sanchi Bindra, Advocate for Mr. Amar Vivek Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Karan Kaushal, Advocate for Mr. Nitesh Dalal, Advocate for respondent No. 2. **** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral) 1.

In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned award dated 20.05.1998 (Annexure P-24), by which, though the termination of services of the petitioner-workman was held valid by the labour Court, but keeping in view the fact that the allegations levelled against him during the service period which though were proved, were not of a serious nature, a lump sum compensation of Rs.15,000/- was also awarded to the petitionerworkman. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner - workman was appointed as a Helper by respondent No. 2 on 03.10.1988 and his last drawn wages were Rs. 870/- per month. Thereafter, on 11.12.1990, due to misconduct on the part of the petitioner-workman, the services of the workman were suspended and a charge-sheet was served upon him. Vide impugned order dated 20.05.1998 (Annexure P-24), though the termination of the services of the petitioner were held valid, but keeping in mind the long

CWP-14626-1999 (O&M) -2duration of service rendered by the petitioner-workman, a compensation amount of Rs. 15,000/- had been awarded to the petitioner-workman but the said amount has not been paid to the petitioner till now. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner will be satisfied in case the compensation amount is enhanced keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has continuously worked with the respondents-department for a long duration and even during the pendency of the proceedings initiated against him, but for the said period, he was not given the wages that were due to him. 3.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that as the termination of the services of the petitioner were held valid by the labour Court keeping in view the misconduct on the part of the petitioner, hence, the impugned order dated 20.05.1998 (Annexure P-24) is liable to be upheld. 4.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file with their able assistance. 5.

Once, there is no challenge to the award dated 20.05.1998 (Annexure P-24) and the award of compensation by the Labour Court by the employer, the only question which arises for consideration is whether there is a need to enhance the compensation amount as has been awarded keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case. 6.

Keeping in view the fact that the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- was required to be paid in the year 1998 itself but the same has not been paid even after a period of 27 years and interest on the said amount will take the amount of compensation as of now, to the tune of Rs. 1,40,000/- hence, keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances coupled with the fact that the petitioner workman has died and the amount of compensation is to be given to the petitioner workman's wife who is

CWP-14626-1999 (O&M) -3suffering from cancer, the lump sum amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,75,000/- be paid to the petitioner-workman. Learned counsel for the petitioner also undertakes that that no further claim will be raised by petitioner-workman apart from the compensation awarded by this Court hereinbefore.

7.

At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents very fairly submits that as the respondents have no objection in paying the said amount in favour of of the petitioner-workman, the aforesaid order will be complied with by him within the period of 8 weeks of receipt of copy of this order. 8.

The present petition is disposed of in the above terms. 9.

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE 23.07.2025 Riya Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No