$~40 * % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:
16. h November, 2016 + W.P.(C) 6955/2012 KAMLA LATWAL ........ Petitioner
Through: Ms. Monica Kapoor, Adv. versus GLORIOUS STYLINGS AND ANR Through: None. ........ RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. The petitioner has challenged the award passed by the learned Labour Court whereby the petitioner has been awarded compensation of Rs.25,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. The petitioner worked with the respondents as “Hand Worker” 2. from 03rd March, 1991 up to 12th March, 2007 when her service was terminated, whereupon the petitioner raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court. The respondents filed the written statement in which they set up 3. the defence that they terminated the petitioner’s service after fair inquiry as the petitioner had gone on an illegal strike since August, 2003. However, the respondents stopped appearing before the Labour Court and were proceeded ex parte on 06th September, 2010. W.P.(C) 6955/2012 Page 1 of 1 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that The petitioner led ex parte evidence to prove that she was 4. wrongly terminated by the respondents. No evidence was led by respondents to rebut the petitioner’s case.
5. The learned Labour Court held the termination of the petitioner to be illegal. The learned Labour Court however declined the relief of reinstatement and back wages and instead awarded compensation of Rs.25,000/- on the ground that respondent’s firm has been closed, the petitioner worked with the respondents for seven years and had reached the age of retirement.
6. the learned Labour Court erred in noting the years of service as well as the age of the petitioner in para 17 of the judgment. It is submitted that the petitioner was aged 39 years whereas the learned Labour Court held the petitioner had reached the age of retirement. It is further submitted that the petitioner completed 16 years of service whereas the Claims Tribunal took the petitioner’s service as 7 years. The petitioner is claiming reinstatement and back wages. the petitioner in the compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondents despite service by publication.
7. This Court is of the view that the reinstatement and back wages is not warranted in this case. However, the compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages by the Labour Court warrants enhancement considering that the petitioner had completed 16 years of service with the respondents and was aged 39 years at the time of passing of the award. seeks enhancement In the alternative, W.P.(C) 6955/2012 Page 2 of 2 Considering the length of service of the petitioner and her age, 8. the compensation of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the learned Labour Court is enhanced to Rs.1,50,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the termination i.e. 12th March, 2007. The writ petition is allowed and the award of Rs.1,50,000/
along with interest @ 9% from the date of the termination is passed in favour of the respondents. Pending application is disposed of. the petitioner and against NOVEMBER16 2016 ak J.R. MIDHA, J.
W.P.(C) 6955/2012 Page 3 of 3