Delhi High Court
Shri Mohd. Shakir vs M/S Sunder Lal Jain Hospital on 30 March, 2009
Author: V.K. Shali
Bench: V.K. Shali
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Writ Petition (Civil) No.7864/2009
Date of Decision : 30.03.2009
Shri Mohd. Shakir ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Brijesh Kumar,
Advocate
Versus
M/s Sunder Lal Jain Hospital .......Respondent
Through: Nemo
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment? NO
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ? NO
V.K. SHALI, J.
1. The petitioner has challenged the award dated 23.9.2008 passed by the learned Labour Court-XII in ID no.411/2004 titled Sh. Mohd. Shakir Vs. M/s Sunder Lal Jain Hospital, by virtue of which the learned Labour Court although upheld that the termination order dated 16.4.1999 is illegal and unjustified but instead of granting the reinstatement to the petitioner, it has granted the petitioner one time compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.
2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned award on this limited question of grant of one time compensation in lieu of reinstatement by contenting that the learned Labour Court in its order has relied upon conjectures and surmises to say that parties have spread 'venomous fangs' and this has 'bred a mutual distrust' and therefore, would not justify the grant of reinstatement. WP(C) No.7864/2008 Page 1 of 3
3. This reasoning has been assailed on the ground that the learned Labour Court did not have any material before it not only pass such observation but also to deny the benefit of reinstatement.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. It is now settled by the Apex Court in a number of judgments that once the termination /dismissal of a workman is held to be illegal and unjustified that in itself ipso facto does not result in reinstatement of the workman. The Labour Court in exercise of its powers under Section 11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 instead of granting the benefit of reinstatement can grant one time compensation in lieu thereof. Reliance can be placed on Talwara Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. Vs. Sushil Kumar 2008 (9) SCC
486. The Supreme Court has more recently held that relief of reinstatement is a trite and is not automatic nor is the grant of back wages is automatic. The Courts while exercising their power under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act are required to strike a balance in a situation of this nature.
5. Coming back to the facts of the present case, paragraph 16 of the impugned judgment clearly shows that the learned Labour Court after holding the termination of the petitioner to be illegal was cognizant of the fact that on account of the hot contest of the matter before the Labour Court, parties are bound to have trust deficit because of which the Court did not order reinstatement. It may destroy the atmosphere in the hospital.
6. These observations which have been passed by the learned Labour Court cannot be said to be without any basis or arbitrary on account of the fact that being the Trial Court, it has recorded the evidence, seen the conduct of the parties, witnesses and the WP(C) No.7864/2008 Page 2 of 3 authorized representatives and therefore, it was well within its rights to assess that in the event a direction for reinstatement is passed, it may hamper the overall peaceful atmosphere of an Organization.
7. Another factor which seems to have weighed with the learned Labour Court is to the effect that the respondent is a Hospital and that too charitable. In such an Organization where the patients have to be treated, there has to be a complete peace and tranquility and undiluted attention to the welfare of the indoor as well as outdoor patients rather than the Management getting embroiled in litigation with its workman.
8. The quantum of compensation which has been fixed in favour of the petitioner, keeping in view all these facts also seems to be just, fair and reasonable. Therefore, I find no infirmity in the exercise of the discretion by the Labour Court which would warrant any interference in the writ jurisdiction merely because the Writ Court being a superior Court holds a different opinion, it cannot and ought not substitute its discretion which may be contrary to the discretion which has been exercised by the learned Labour Court below.
9. With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed as being without any merit.
No order as to costs.
V.K. SHALI, J.
March 30, 2009 RN WP(C) No.7864/2008 Page 3 of 3