Madhya Pradesh High Court
Keshav Prasad Shrivas vs D.E.T. R.E. Project on 26 August, 2022
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 26th OF AUGUST, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 1198 of 2016
Between:-
KESHAV PRASAD SHRIVAS S/O SHRI GANESH
PRASAD SHRIAS H NO 54, BEHIND OLD
CENTRAL BANK BUILDING GARHA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ANOOP NAIR - ADVOCATE)
AND
D.E.T. R.E. PROJECT THROUGH E-3/179, ARERA
COLONY (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI SURESH RAJ - ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved of the order dated 03.08.2015 (Annx.P/1), passed by learned CGIT/Labour Court, Jabalpur (Shri R.B.Patle) Presiding Officer, in Case No. CGIT/LC/R/118/98, directing payment of Rs.25,000/- in lieu of reinstatement, after holding retrenchment of the workman to be illegal.
2. It is submitted that sum of Rs.25,000/- is too meager and reliance is placed Signature Not Verified SAN on the judgment of Supreme Court in State of Uttarakhand and another Vs. Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Date: 2022.08.29 19:33:03 IST Raj Kumar [(2019) 14 SCC 353], so also on judgment of Supreme Court in 2 Deputy Executive Engineer Vs. Kuberbhai Kanjibhai [(2019) 4 SCC 307], where sum of Rs.1 lakh was awarded in lieu of his right to claim reinstatement and back wages in full and final satisfaction of the claim. Placing reliance on these two judgments, it is submitted that at least a sum of Rs.1 lakh should have been awarded if not more as the case of the petitioner is on the similar footing.
3. Shri Suresh Raj, on the other hand, submits that case of the petitioner is not on the similar footing. It has come on record that petitioner worked for only 14 months. Management terminated his services w.e.f. 31.10.1987. The Tribunal after appreciating various facets of the case has held in para 13 that name of the workman was not sponsored through employment exchange. He was working on daily wages. Therefore, learned Tribunal has held that reinstatement of workman would not be justified after so many years when cause of action had accrued on 31.10.1987 and awarded compensation of Rs.25,000/-.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is evident that in case of State of Uttarakhand and another Vs. Raj Kumar (supra), so also in case of Deputy Executive Engineer Vs. Kuberbhai Kanjibhai (supra), Supreme Court has awarded compensation of Rs.1 lakh after noting a fact that claimant had worked for few years, whereas, fact of the present case that claimant had hardly worked for 14 months and there was inordinate delay in filing the claim case and, therefore, under the facts and circumstances of the case, with a view to balance equity, this petition can be disposed of directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty Thousand) against a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand), Signature Not Verified SAN awarded by learned Labour Court. The petitioner will not be entitled to any Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Date: 2022.08.29 19:33:03 IST other reliefs and this amount of 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) will carry 3 interest as has been awarded by the learned Labour Court.
5. In the above terms, this writ petition stands disposed of.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE A.Praj.
Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Date: 2022.08.29 19:33:03 IST