Delhi District Court
Sh. Mohar Singh S/O Sh. Kahar Singh vs M/S. Lancer Convent Senior Secondary ... on 9 May, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV KUMAR
ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI.
DID No.10/13
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:
Sh. Mohar Singh S/O Sh. Kahar Singh
Through: Jagriti Labour Union (Regd.),
Ch. No. C183, Tis Hazari Court,
Delhi 94
...............Workman
VERSUS
M/s. Lancer Convent Senior Secondary School,
Prashant Vihar, Rohini
Delhi.
........Management
Date of Institution :09.07.2008
Date of Award
: 09.05.2014
AWARD
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the direct claim filed
by the claimant against his illegal dismissal from service by
respondent/management M/s Lancer Convent Senior Secondary
School.
DID 10/13 Mohar Singh Vs. M/s Lancer Convent Senior Secondary School Page no.1 out of 24
2. The brief facts as stated in the statement of claim are that the workman was appointed on the post of 'Driver' in July 2003 and his monthly salary was Rs.8088/. The management was not providing legal facilities according to labour laws and therefore, the workman was demanding the said facilities but their demands were not made hence, the workman filed a case for general demand before the labour department which is pending. The management officials were pressuring the workman to take back the case and when the workman was not agree to it therefore management official were conspiring to terminate him and due to said reason they have started domestic enquiry against the workman. The workman has requested to change the place of inquiry and allow him to be represented by his AR from either from union office bearer, or through Advocate but the management did not allow him. He was not even provided inquiry report for six month. On 20.6.08 when workman came for duty he was not allowed to join the duty and they were not paid any legal dues. On 24.6.08 the workman sent demand letter through registered post demanding reinstatement and balance legal dues but management did not take him back nor paid any legal dues despite receiving of letters. The workman is unemployed since the date of his illegal DID 10/13 Mohar Singh Vs. M/s Lancer Convent Senior Secondary School Page no.2 out of 24 termination.
3 The management refuted the allegation made in statement of claim in the written statement. The management has taken the preliminary objection that workman has filed a false case and suppressed the material facts. It is further stated that the workman was challaned u/s. 112/183/66.1/192A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 by the Delhi Traffic police while he was driving the bus No. DL1P5285 carrying the students on 19.1.07. Hence, the workman was issued show cause notice dt. 1.10.07 for the said challan asking why disciplinary action is not taken against him. On finding the reply unsatisfactory departmental inquiry was initiated and Ms. Sumedha Dua was appointed as Enquiry officer vide letter dated 14.11.07. the workman faced the departmental enquriy. The Enquiry officer vide his report dated 6.4.08 gave his finding holding the workman guilty of the charges leveled against him. The disciplinary authority duly considered the inquiry report and accepted the findings of the EO and imposed the penalty of dismissal from service. A letter dated 24.8.08 was issued to the workman calling him to submit his representation to the same within two weeks and on receipt of the application of his reply dt. 22.4.08 disciplinary authority finally terminated him from service. DID 10/13 Mohar Singh Vs. M/s Lancer Convent Senior Secondary School Page no.3 out of 24 Vide letter dt. 5.5.08 the management sought the approval from the Director of Education as per section 120 (2) of the Delhi School Education Act & Rules 1973 and on receipt of approval , the workman was dismissed from the service 22.06.08.
4. On merits all the contents of the statement of claim were denied as incorrect. It is denied that the workman was engaged by the management as driver since 2003 at the monthly salary of Rs. 8088/ but it is stated that he was appointed on. Further it is denied that workman was not provided legal facilities under the labour laws. It is further denied that the workman alongwith other employees filed a case of general demand before the labour officer which is still pending. Further it is denied that the management got annoyed due to filing of the said case and conspire the termination of the workman. It is also denied that the workman was not allowed to be represent by AR in his defence. It is denied that the workman was not provided enquiry report despite the conclusion of the inquiry proceedings prior to six months of the inquiry report. It is also stated that the workman was challaned u/s. 112/183/66.1, 192A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 by the Delhi Traffic while he was driving the bus No. DL1P5285 carrying the students on 19.1.07. The workman was issued show cause notice DID 10/13 Mohar Singh Vs. M/s Lancer Convent Senior Secondary School Page no.4 out of 24 dt. 1.10.07 for the said challan and inquiry was initiated against the workman and thereafter dismissed the workman. The other contents of the statement of claim were denied by the management. The management prayed that the claim petition of the workman may be dismissed.
5. The claimant has filed the rejoinder wherein he denied the contention of W.S. and reagitated the averments made in the statement of claim.
6. From the pleadings of both parties, vide order dt. 12.02.2009 following issues were framed:
1. Whether the workman had been working with the management regularly since July, 2003 at the post of driver drawing last wages @ Rs.8088/ per month?
2. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to decide this matter?
3. Whether the services of the workman have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management.
4. Relief.
7. Thereafter, at the request of both parties, vide order dated 14.12.09 the following issues have been framed :
DID 10/13 Mohar Singh Vs. M/s Lancer Convent Senior Secondary School Page no.5 out of 24 "Whether a proper and fair domestic enquiry was conducted by the management against the workman before termination of his services?
8. The enquiry was treated as preliminary issue and both parties were given opportunity to lead evidence on enquiry issue.
9. In order to prove, the workman lead his evidence on enquiry issues, the workman examined himself by way of affidavit Ex.WW1/A and also relied upon documents Ex WW1/1 to 1/ 4. He was cross examined.
10. On the other hand, the management has examined MW1 Ms. Sumedha Dua, Enquiry officer and filed the inquiry report Ex. MW1/1 and also examined MW1 Joginder Singh Mann and has relied upon documents Ex. MW1/1 i.e. guide lines dt. 18.11.05 issued by the Director of Education and his affidavit will be read as MW1A/A.
11. After completion of the evidence of both parties, the issue of inquiry was decided vide order dt. 03.04.2014 and I held that enquiry has been conducted fairly and according to principal of natural justice.
12. After deciding the enquiry issue, no further evidence DID 10/13 Mohar Singh Vs. M/s Lancer Convent Senior Secondary School Page no.6 out of 24 was led by both the parties on the other issues.
13. I have heard the arguments of Ld. AR for the workman Sh. Markendey Shukla and AR for the management Sh. R.K. Anand and also gone through the material on record.
Issue no.1
14. The claimant in the claim petition has stated that he was regularly employed since July 2003 and his last drawn wages was Rs. 8088/ per month. Similar fact he has deposed in his evidence led by way of affidavit EXWW1/A. Though management in the WS has stated that claimant was engaged on 04.08. 2003 and his salary was 8868/ per month but no suggestion has been given to the claimant in his cross examination that workman did not join since July 2003 or his salary was not 8868/ per month. Hence testimony of claimant remained unrebutted on this aspect. Further no document has been placed by management in this regard. Hence it is proved that he was regularly employed since July 2003 and his last drawn wages was Rs. 8088/ per month. Issue no.1 decided accordingly.
Issue no. 2 "Whether the present claim filed directly by the workman before DID 10/13 Mohar Singh Vs. M/s Lancer Convent Senior Secondary School Page no.7 out of 24 this court is not maintainable in view of the preliminary objection no. 2 of the written statement of the management?"
15. The preliminary objection is taken by the management is that since the management has raised by a registered educational society and the provisions of Delhi School Education Act & Rules 1973. Therefore, the workman being the employee of the school can raised the disputes only under Delhi School Education Act & Rules 1973 and therefore claim of the workman filed under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act is not maintainable. Hence, this court is not competent to decide the disputes.
16. This issue has been settled by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 13.05.2013 passed in WP (C) 6993/2012 and connected matter by Hon'ble Justice Valmiki Mehta which was filed by the claimant and other workman whereby Hon,ble Justice granted the permission to revive the present reference to the workman which was withdrawn by them on 29.10.2010 on the ground they will approach to concerned authority established under Delhi School Education Act & Rules 1973 . Hence, in the present facts, I held that the present reference is maintainable before this court and this court has jurisdiction decide the same. Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly.
DID 10/13 Mohar Singh Vs. M/s Lancer Convent Senior Secondary School Page no.8 out of 24 Issue No. 3 "Whether the services of the workman had been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management?"
17. In order to prove the issue management has examined the two witnesses MW1 Sumedha Dua who is enquiry officer. She has led her evidence by way of affidavit EXMW1/A. She has deposed that she was appointed as EO vide letter dt. 14.11.07 by the management to conduct a domestic enquiry on the charges leveled against the workman. She conducted inquiry in accordance with principles of natural justice fairly. The workman was given full opportunity to appear before the EO alongwith the defence assistant to defend his case himself. The workman has filed his reply to the charges and also submitted documents in his defence. After conducting the enquiry as per prevailing law and procedure including guidelines of director of Education and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and she gave his enquiry report and proved inquiry report Ex. MW1/1.
18. On the other hand Sh. Joginder Singh was also inadvertently examined as MW1 its Secretary. He has deposed that the management has no personnel grudge against the workman and DID 10/13 Mohar Singh Vs. M/s Lancer Convent Senior Secondary School Page no.9 out of 24 was providing all the legal facilities. His services was terminated according to laws & as per rules,instruction and direction of Dept. of Education,GNCT of Delhi. He further deposed that claimant was prosecuted vide challan no.357736 v/s 112/183M.V.Act for speeding at 52 km per hour where as permissible limit was 40 Km per hour thus endangering the life of school going children. He was chargesheeted according to law. Enquiry officer conducted the enquiry disciplinary authority took action accordingly dismissing him considering the order of Directorate of Education and the verdict of Supreme Court.
19. On the other hand in order to prove the same workman has himself examined as WW1/A in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. WW1/A he has deposed that that he was given a charge sheet notice dt. 20.6.08 in which allegation were made that he was challaned u/s 66/192 on 19.1.2007. The management was annoyed from him as he had filed a general demand on 25.01.2007 and since he did not withdraw. He was given charge sheet & domestic enquiry was conducted. No employee can be dismissed on the ground of challan u/s 66/192. he further deposed that the speed governer was defective and management was informed many time but they asked him to drove the vehicle they will be responsible. DID 10/13 Mohar Singh Vs. M/s Lancer Convent Senior Secondary School Page no.10 out of 24 The challan was issued due to negligency of management. He further deposed that workman Suresh and Ram Niwas were also challaned in same manner but management did not take action. He proved copies of their memos are Ex. WW1/6 and Ex. WW1/7 respectively.
20. Ld AR for the management has contended that from the testimony of MW1 and MW2 and from the admission of workman it is proved that, workman was a driver and he was challan under section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Delhi Traffic Police where he was driving the school bus No. DL1P5256 carrying the students on 24.09.2007 and thus violated the Supreme Court of India guidelines issued in the case M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India and Others (1998) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676 and also violated the guidelines formed by the Director of Education of Govt. of NCT of Delhi dt.18.11.2005. He further argued that since as per guideline claimant can not ply the school bus therefore Hence, he was terminated from service after due domestic enquiry.
21. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for AR for workman has argued that the punishment of termination imposed by the management is to harsh because he was first time Challan by the traffic police in connivance with management. Ld. AR for the DID 10/13 Mohar Singh Vs. M/s Lancer Convent Senior Secondary School Page no.11 out of 24 workman argued that since management has grudge against the workman as he has filed complaint of general demand before Govt and refused to withdraw the same . Therefore, management become annoyed and terminated him where as on similar kind of offence other driver have been let off. Therefore, in the circumstances, termination of the workman is illegally and unjustified.
22. The enquiry issue have already been decided vide order dt. 03.04. 2014 in favour of the management earlier and held that domestic enquiry was conducted fairly and according to principal of natural justice. The enquiry officer i.e. MW1Sumedha Dua had found that workman had committed misconduct as he driven the school bus at over speed for which he was challaned u/s 66/192A/183 MV Act. Even otherwise said fact is undisputed that claimant was challaned for overspeeding while driving the aforesaid school bus as in his affidavit EXWW1/A he had only taken the plea no employee is removed due to challan u/s 66/192 M.V.Act.. This is also undisputed fact that he did not contested the said challan and pleaded guilty and he was convicted and fine as he himself admitted in his affidavit that the amount of challan ff Rs. 2700/ was deducted by management from his salary, hence when he pleaded guilty and convicted of the said offence in competent DID 10/13 Mohar Singh Vs. M/s Lancer Convent Senior Secondary School Page no.12 out of 24 court of law, his plea cannot be accepted that he was not driving the vehicle at overspeed and falsely challaned was issued against him.
23. Management had not produced on record any document that workman was earlier also challaned for driving vehicle rashly and negligently or he has driven to vehicle in over speeding. No such suggestion has been given to the workman in his cross examination. Hence, thus remains and undisputed fact that this was the first mistake or misconduct of the workman. The contention of the Ld. AR for the management that as per the guidelines issued by Delhi Government vide no. DE 23(47)/School Br./2004/6694266988 dated 18.11.2005 school could not ply school bus from a driver who has even once challaned/charge for over speed. Hence in this circumstances punishment of termination cannot be said to be harshed.
24. As per guideline 3 (iv) issued by Delhi Government vide no. DE 23(47)/School Br./2004/6694266988 dated 18.11.2005 the driver should not be challaned over speeding The relevant guideline is reproduced as below: "The driver should not have been challaned or charged with the offence of over speeding, drunken driving, driving DID 10/13 Mohar Singh Vs. M/s Lancer Convent Senior Secondary School Page no.13 out of 24 dangerously rash driving or riding on a public way, causing hurt or grievous hurt by an act of endangering life or personal safety or other culpable homicide or the IPC."
25. The said guidelines has been taken by the government from the judgment of Supreme Court passed in M C Mehta vs. Union of India and others (1998) 1 SCC 676. In the said judgement guidelines has been given by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India which is to be followed by the school with reference to the school transport. As per the guidelines "No bus belonging to or hired by an educational institution shall be driven by a driver who has
(a) Less than five years of experience of driving heavy vehicles:
(b) been challaned more than twice in a year in respect of offences of jumping red lights, improper or obstructive parking,violating the stop line, violating the rule requiring driving within the bus lane, violating restricting the overtaking, allowing unauthorised person to drive:
(c ) have been challaned/charged even once for the offence of over speeding, drunkendriving and driving dangerously or for the offences under sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of the Indian DID 10/13 Mohar Singh Vs. M/s Lancer Convent Senior Secondary School Page no.14 out of 24 Penal Code."
26. Hence, there is categorically order of Supreme Court of India that no driver can be allowed to drive school bus even if he once has been challaned or charged for offence of over speeding which the claimant has done. Therefore, in the circumstances, the act of the management to terminate the service of the workman cannot be said to be illegal or unjustify because the management cannot use the service of the workman as driver as it would amount to be violation of the guidelines issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as well as Government of NCT of Delhi. Hence in this circumstances act of management to terminate the workman cannot be said to be illegal.
27. However I found force in the another contention of Ld. AR for workman is that since dispute of general demand was pending therefore termination of workman without approval is violation of section 33(2) (b) of I. D Act. The onus was on the claimant to prove the said fact that on the day of termination any complaint of general demand was pending. Claimant in his affidavit EXWW1/A has deposed that he filed a general demand case due to which management got annoyed. Photocopy of one complaint of general demand dt. 25.01. 2007 is also placed on record as mark DID 10/13 Mohar Singh Vs. M/s Lancer Convent Senior Secondary School Page no.15 out of 24 A. O perusal of said complaint of general demand I found that demand regarding minimum wages, issuance of appointment letter, uniform, wage slip etc. has been raised. The said complaint also contained list of workers which include name of claimant. MW1 Joginder Singh admitted that notice of general demand dt. 25.01.2007 was received from labour office and case of general demand is pending for disposal before the court of Sh. Mahavir Singhal Industrial Tribunal. Admittedly claimant has been terminated on 03. 07. 2008. Hence claimant has been terminated on pendency of general demand case. Undoubtedly claimant has not led any evidence where the proceeding of general demand was pending but since management management has admitted that proceedings are pending therefore it does not make much difference. The management has not taken the plea that it has filed any application seeking permission or approval u/s 33(2)(b) of the I. D. Act. From concerned authority where proceedings was pending. Hence provisions of section 33(2) (b) of the I. D. Act has been violated by the management which make termination illegal. In this regard I relied upon judgement Jiapur Zila Sahkari Bhoomi Vikas vs Ram Gopal Sharma where in it is held :
" The proviso to Section 33(2)(b), as can be seen from DID 10/13 Mohar Singh Vs. M/s Lancer Convent Senior Secondary School Page no.16 out of 24 its very unambiguous and clear language, is mandatory. This apart, from the object of Section 33 and in the context of the proviso to Section 33(2)(b), it is obvious that the conditions contained in the said proviso are to be essentially complied with. Further any employer who contravenes the provisions of Section 33 invites a punishment under S.31(1) with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to Rs.1000/- or with both. This penal provision is again a pointer of the mandatory nature of the proviso to comply with the conditions stated therein. To put it in other way, the said conditions being mandatory, are to be satisfied if an order of discharge or dismissal passed under Section 33(2)(b) is to be operative. If an employer desires to take benefit of the said provision for passing an order of discharge or dismissal of an employee, he has also to take the burden of discharging the statutory obligation placed on him in the said proviso. Taking a contrary view that an order of discharge or dismissal passed by an employer in contravention of the mandatory conditions contained in the proviso does not render such an order inoperative or void, defeats the very purpose of the proviso and it becomes meaningless. It is well-settled rule of interpretation that no part of statute shall be construed as unnecessary or superfluous. The proviso cannot be diluted or disobeyed by an employer. He cannot disobey the mandatory provision and then say that the order of discharge or dismissal made in DID 10/13 Mohar Singh Vs. M/s Lancer Convent Senior Secondary School Page no.17 out of 24 contravention of Section 33(2)(b) is not void or inoperative. He cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong. The interpretation of statute must be such that it should advance the legislative intent and serve the purpose for which it is made rather than to frustrate it. The proviso to Section 33(2)(b) affords protection to a workman to safeguard his interest and it is a shield against victimization and unfair labour practice by the employer during the pendency of industrial dispute when the relationship between them are already strained. An employer cannot be permitted to use the provision of Section 33(2)(b) to ease out a workman without complying with the conditions contained in the said proviso for any alleged misconduct said to be unconnected with the already pending industrial dispute. The protection afforded to a workman under the said provision cannot be aken away. If it is to be held that an order of discharge or dismissal passed by the employer without complying with the requirements of the said proviso is not void or inoperative, the employer may with impunity discharge or dismiss a workman."
23. Hence in these circumstances I held that termination of claimant was in violation of provision of section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act and hence was illegal. Issue no.2 decided accordingly.
RELIEF
28. The relief of reinstatement is not automatic where ever DID 10/13 Mohar Singh Vs. M/s Lancer Convent Senior Secondary School Page no.18 out of 24 termination has been held illegal. It depend upon fact and circumstances of each case. This view is also strengthen by judgment of "Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Oberoi Flight Services"AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 502 where in Supreme Court while rely upon various judgements of Supreme Court held compensation in lieu of reinstatement or back wages would be appropriate. The relevant para of judgement is reproduced as below: "8. In the case of Sita Ram v. Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute2(2008 AIR SCW 2256) this Court considered the matter thus :
"21. The question, which, however, falls for our consideration is as to whether the Labour Court was justified in awarding reinstatement of the appellants in service.
22. Keeping in view the period during which the services were rendered by the respondent (sic appellants); the fact that the respondent had stopped its operation of bee farming, and the sen/ices of the appellants were terminated in December 1996, we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case where the appellants could have been directed to be reinstated in service.
23. Indisputably, the Industrial Court, exercises a discretionary jurisdiction, but such discretion is required to be exercised DID 10/13 Mohar Singh Vs. M/s Lancer Convent Senior Secondary School Page no.19 out of 24 judiciously. Relevant factors therefore were required to be taken into consideration; the nature of appointment, the period of appointment, the availability of the job, etc. should weigh with the court for determination of such an issue.
24. This Court in a large number of decisions opined that payment of adequate amount of compensation in place of a direction to be reinstated in service in cases of this nature would subserve the ends of justice. (See Jaipur Development Authority v. Ramsahai [(2006) 11 SCC 684] : (2006 AIR SCW 5963), M.P. Admn. v. Tribhuban [(2007)
9 SCC 748] : (2007 AIR SCW 2357) and Uttaranchal Forest Development Corpn. v. M.C. Joshi [(2007) 9 SCC 353] : (2007 AIR SCW 7305))
25. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that payment of a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 to each of the appellants, would meet the ends of justice. This appeal is allowed to the aforementioned extent. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs."
9. The aforereferred two decisions of this Court and few more decisions were considered by us in the case of Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board3(2009 AIR SCW 4824) albeit in the context of retrenchment of a daily wager in violation of section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act who had worked for more than 240 days in a year and we observed thus :
"7. It is true that earlier view of this Court articulated in many DID 10/13 Mohar Singh Vs. M/s Lancer Convent Senior Secondary School Page no.20 out of 24 decisions reflected the legal position that if the termination of an employee was found to be illegal, the relief of reinstatement with full back wages would ordinarily follow. However, in recent past, there has been a shift in the legal position and in long line of cases, this Court has consistently taken the view that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation even though the termination of an employee is in contravention to the prescribed procedure.
Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice."
(c) It is not necessary to multiply the decisions of this Court wherein award of compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages has been held to be adequate and in the interest of justice. (ci) In light of the aforesaid legal position, the view of the High Court that monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement of the workman would be proper cannot be said to be unjustified."
29. In case titled as Mohd. Shakir And Sunder Lal Jain Hospital 2010ILLJ245 (Del) High Court of Delhi it was held that:
" illegality of dismissal/termination from service of a workman did not in itself ipso facto result in his reinstatement. The long history of litigation and acrimony between the parties leading to trust deficit in this case was considered by the Labour DID 10/13 Mohar Singh Vs. M/s Lancer Convent Senior Secondary School Page no.21 out of 24 Court and it had rightly concluded that reinstatement might not be appropriate remedy will justified award of compensation in lieu of the reinstatement of the workman."
In another judgment of Jharkhand vide 2012 LLE 317 Employers in relation to the Management of Kuju Pundi Project of M/s Central Coalfield Ltd., Ranchi vs. Their workmen represented by the Secretary, Jharkhand Colliery Mazdoor Sangh, Hazaribagh, it was held that that : Compensation instead of reinstatement would be appropriate to the workmen who were engaged only as casual, hence Division Bench allowed compensation of Rs.30,000 each in addition to the last drawn wages received by them as provided by Section 17B of the ndustrial Disputes Act.
In another case Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Varanasi and Another Vs. State of U.P. & Others631 LLR2011, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has held that:
(cii) "noncompliance of provisions of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act providing for retrenchment compensation and one month's notice at the time of termination is not a rule of thumb to grant reinstatement with back wages since the compensation of Rs.50,000/ in lieu thereof would be appropriate relief hence the Award of the Labour Court granting reinstatement is set aside."
DID 10/13 Mohar Singh Vs. M/s Lancer Convent Senior Secondary School Page no.22 out of 24
30. Now reverting back to the case the case as stated above it is proved against the claimant that he has violated guidelines of Supreme Court as well as Govt. Of NCT of Delhi by driving vehicle at over speed. Therefore as per guideline he cannot be deployed to drive the school bus for which he was employed as it would be violation of Supreme Court and Delhi Govt. Guideline. Hence it would not be appropriate to reinstate him. He claimed he was unemployed since his termination. But he admitted that he has not applied for job. Hence he has not made effort to get alternative job. No body could be allowed to remain idle seeking reinstatement. He was a driver which in great demand hence had he made effort he could get some employment. Hence in my view it would not be appropriate to grant back wages. However since he was terminated illegally therefore the compensation would be appropriate remedy. The claimant has joined in the year 2003 and was terminated in year 2009 hence he worked for about six years. His last drawn wages was Rs. 8088/Per month. Hence I award lumpsum compensation of Rs.75,000/ (seventy five thousand ) to workman as compensation in lieu of reinstatement, back wages and other benefits.
31. Copy of award be sent to the Secretary Labour, Govt. of DID 10/13 Mohar Singh Vs. M/s Lancer Convent Senior Secondary School Page no.23 out of 24 NCT, Delhi for publication of the award. The claim is answered accordingly. The award be also sent to server (www.delhicourts.nic.in). File be consigned to Record Room. Announced in the open court on 9th May, 2014 (Sanjeev Kumar) Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Karkardooma, Delhi.
DID 10/13 Mohar Singh Vs. M/s Lancer Convent Senior Secondary School Page no.24 out of 24