Raju Chand vs The Zonal Director Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan, Chandigarh & Ors.
- SCC(2016) 14 SCC 534
- Neutral2016 INSC 534
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where loss of confidence by the employer has been established, monetary compensation is an appropriate remedy in lieu of reinstatement, and the quantum of such compensation should be determined having regard to the length of service rendered by the employee.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
RAJU CHAND Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE ZONAL DIRECTOR NEHRU YUVA KENDRA
SANGATHAN, CHANDIGARH & ORS. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant is before this Court, aggrieved by the Judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court, whereby the award passed by the Labour Court, as confirmed by the learned Single Judge, has been upheld.
3. The appellant was a Driver on daily wage basis, according to the appellant, on a temporary basis. Be that as it may, the Labour Court had passed an award, directing the reinstatement of the appellant along with back wages. That was upheld by the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench, however, took note of the fact that the Management had lost confidence and hence held that it was a fit case for one-time monetory 2 compensation and hence, allowed the appeal and granted Rs. 3.5 Lakhs to the appellant.
4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on both the sides, we are of the view that interest of justice would be met if appropriate monetory compensation is granted to the appellant. But in our opinion, taking note of the long service rendered by the appellant, the amount of compensation granted by the High Court is inadequate.
5. The appeal is thus allowed, granting compensation of Rs. 7.5 Lakhs (Rupees Seven Lakhs and Fifty Thousand) in full and final settlement of the entire claim of the appellant. The amount shall be released within a period of three months from today.
No costs.
.......................J.
[ KURIAN JOSEPH ]
.......................J.
[ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ]
New Delhi;
JULY 15, 2016.
3
ITEM NO.50 COURT NO.11 SECTION XV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 186/2016 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16/09/2015 in LPA No. 659/2015 16/09/2015 in CWP No. 13121/2012 passed by the High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh)
RAJU CHAND Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE ZONAL DIRECTOR NEHRU YUVA KENDRA
SANGATHAN, CHANDIGARH & ORS. Respondent(s)
(with office report)
Date : 15/07/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
For Petitioner(s) Ms. Priyanjali Singh, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Aneesh Mittal, Adv.
Mr. R. Ramachandran, Adv.
Mr. Lakshmi Gurung, Adv.
Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal, Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed non-reportable Judgment.
Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of.
(Jayant Kumar Arora) (Renu Diwan)
Court Master Court Master (Signed non-reportable Judgment is placed on the file)
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free