Full Judgment Text
1
NON
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS 1252-1253 OF 2005
Awadesh Chandra Agarwal …
Appellant
Versus
Divisional Manager, L.I.C. of India …
Respondent
O R D E R
1. These appeals are directed against the final
rd
judgment and order dated 23 of February, 2004 in
CMWP No.8501 of 1999 and also the final judgment
th
and order dated 4 of March, 2004 in CMWP No.
19749 of 1988 passed by a learned Judge of the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by which the
High Court had allowed the writ petition filed by the
appellant holding that the appellant had not
continuously worked for 240 days and thus the
th
award passed by the Labour Court dated 28 of
2
September, 1998 was set aside. At the same time,
the High Court had allowed a writ petition
(W.P.No.19749 of 1988) filed by the appellant
th
setting aside the order dated 30 of November,
1987 passed by the Labour Court for computation
of monetary benefits amounting to Rs.9559.88
towards wages under Section 33-C(2) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Without finally
determining the question whether the High Court
was entitled to interfere with the findings of fact
arrived at by the Labour Court while computing the
period of work of 240 days of the appellant, we are
of the view that these appeals may be disposed of
by directing the respondent-L.I.C. to pay
Rs.40,000/- as final compensation in lieu of
reinstatement and other benefits.
2. Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of with a
direction that the respondent shall pay a total sum
of Rs.40,000/- to the appellant in lieu of
3
reinstatement and other benefits which were
available to him, if reinstatement of the appellant
was effected, within a period of three months from
this date. In default of payment of the aforesaid
sum of Rs.40,000/- to the appellant within the time
specified hereinabove, the order of the High Court
shall stand set aside and the award passed by the
Labour Court shall stand restored.
3. This will not be cited as a precedent in other cases.
4. The appeals are thus disposed of accordingly.
There will be no order as to costs.
………………………..J.
[Tarun Chatterjee]
New Delhi; ………………………..
J.
November 11, 2008. [V.S.Sirpurkar]
4