Lakhmi Chand v. Block Development Officer And ORS
!
"#$ $%&'&() *
+",-.&-"(/ $#&#&($0 1$0'2'
3%, $4$35.$(#"(/"(%-"6"#
&%$07 "8"37 &'#0&%#$8"0&"(/ #-$0'
$'5(/$(#'
"
###
!
$
&
1 &
2 '&
&
"
/
& 1 &
2 '& 1 & ($ )4 "))5
/
1
& "
&
$4 )4 "))6
7& $5(8 ") $$ ")$"
-$.
1
1 33$)59- $4 )4 "))6
($ $) "))5
' 1
$
, -"
2
1 191 "*:
%
$534 + ;$534 <.
/
' &
& = 1 ( /
- '21 > 1 1
1
%
& & * & $4 )4 "))6 1
7& $5(8 ") $$ ")$"
!
-$.
33$)59-
?
, -"
- "2.
The Para No.
2 is wrong and not accepted. The wages of the petitioner Rs. 44109/ for the period 17 2008 to 31 2009 has been paid. The petitioner is in habit to absent from work, therefore, the petitioner was removed for not doing Gram Panchayat work properly."
' '
1 '2
?
&
&
$"
1
?
&
- @
"*- :
$534
& 1
? 1 > '
' &
% 1
, 1
'2 1
1
:
A
$8
' 1
&
2
'2 1
2
'
&
1 $)
'
B
/ $")( ")"$ "# $
%
&'
( ) &
* )$ )( ")"(
1
*))))9-
1
& -721
& A&1 - "6. Resultantly, once the workman had completed 240 days and apparently had worked for a period spanning more than 5 1⁄2 years, we are of the considered opinion that dispensing of his service before his contractual period came to an end would entitle him for the statutory protection which would be evident from the award of the Labour Court. However, keeping in view the fact that at this point of time, it would not 3 of since a period of almost 25 years has gone by and therefore, it would be just and appropriate to award compensation to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/ on an average of Rs.50,000/ per year, keeping in view the fact that the State had taken his service for more than 5 years with the same office in different districts.
7. The Apex Court in Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Om Pal, (2007) 5 SCC 742 granted Rs.25,000/ for the service of one year whereas in Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation Vs. M.C.Joshi, (2007) 9 SCC 353, for a period of 2 years, a sum of Rs.75,000/ was granted. Similarly, in Asst.Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation & another Vs. Gitam Singh, 2013 (1) SCR 679, the said view was followed while noticing that the service was of 8 months and thus, compensation of Rs.50,000/ was granted. Similarly, in Management, Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. Vs. Ghanshyam Sharma, 2018 (18) SCC 80, for a period of one year, compensation of Rs.50,000/ had been granted. In K.V.Anil Mithra & another Vs. Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit & another, 2021 (4) SCT 415, for a period of little over 4 years, amount awarded was Rs.2,50,000/ in lieu of the reinstatement and backwages of 50% which was granted and accordingly, modified."
$$
D
'
'
- -7 1
& 1 $
1 & '2
1
8E 1
' $"
7
'
1 $(
236 7
9 99 kanchan
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No