LawRato

Delhi High Court awards INR 2,00,000 as compensation to a security guard for illegal dismissal of services 37 years ago

July 25, 2017


The Delhi High Court has ordered the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to pay a lump sum compensation of INR 2,00,000 to man whose services as a security guard was illegally terminated 37 years ago.

The Delhi High Court while hearing the petition moved by DDA against two orders of labour court which held that man's termination was illegal and directing his reinstatement with 50 per cent back wages.

Justice C Hari Shankar held that Labour Courts order to reinstate the man with 50 per cent back wages suffice the injustice done because the respondent was appointed as chowkidar more than 40 years ago in 1976 in all probability, he would have crossed the age of superannuation. No useful purpose would, therefore, be served by directing the petitioner (DDA) to reinstate the respondent in service at this distance of time.

He issued a direction stating that the payment should be made within four weeks and held, “ it would be necessary to substitute the decision of the Labour Court to reinstate the respondent with 50% back wages, to an award of lump sum compensation. While deciding on the compensation to be awarded, this court cannot lose sight of the fact, that had the award been implemented, the respondent would have been in the employment of the petitioner until today, and would also be entitled to retiral benefits.”

In the present matter, Mool Chand, respondent was posted as Chowkidar with DDA. On June 14, 1980, GI pipes worth INR 73,600 were stolen from DDA's godown. Mool Chand was held for laxity and absence from duty and consequently, his services were terminated. The Labour Court held in 1998 that termination of Mool chand's services was illegal and against the principle of natural justice and hence is entitled to be reinstated in service.

This decision of Labour Court was then challenged by DDA before Delhi High Court. Justice Shankar said that “ as things stand, there was no clear-cut evidence regarding the time when the theft took place, and the finding, of the Labour Court, to that effect, cannot be characterized as so perverse as to vitiate its order. Almost as a post-script, it is to note that there is no allegation that the respondent was complicit in the actual commission of theft.”

 

Latest Legal News


Supreme Court’s Verdict on the Same-Sex Marriage; No Fundamental Right to Marry
3 Bills to Renew India's Criminal Justice System presented in Lok Sabha; All you Need to Know
Data Protection Bill Passed by the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha; Decoding the DPDP Bill
High Court; Denying Physical Intimacy to Wife not Cruelty under IPC
PoSH Act Implementation
‘Sorry state of affairs' in PoSH Act implementation; SC orders Govts. to ensure ICCs are constituted
Widow can't inherit Property if Husband did not own it: Punjab & Haryana HC
Widow can't inherit Property if Husband did not own it: Punjab & Haryana HC