### Smallness of Amount Justifies Dismissal of Petition Without Adjudication on Merits of Compensation Award

The petitioner-employer, a business engaged in drilling accessories, challenged the orders dated 26.09.2013 and 17.10.2014 passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad

The respondent-workman, formerly a Turner and Shopper, filed a reference (LCA No. 1343 of 2008) alleging illegal termination.

During the proceedings, the workman filed a Purshis (Exhibit-27) stating he did not seek reinstatement as he had secured employment with another company, Precious Fab Fast Pvt. Ltd.

The petitioner contended that the workman left voluntarily and, being gainfully employed elsewhere, was not entitled to back wages or compensation.

Despite these contentions, the Labour Court awarded the workman ₹50,000/- in compensation.

1. Whether the Labour Court erred in awarding compensation of ₹50,000/- despite the workman's admission of gainful employment and waiver of reinstatement.

2. Whether the High Court should interfere with the lower court's award given the specific quantum of the amount involved.

The Court applied the principle of judicial discretion regarding the "smallness of amount" in writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

It also recognized the settled law that gainful employment during the interregnum period generally precludes the awarding of back wages, while maintaining the court's prerogative to dismiss petitions without deciding on merits when the financial stakes are negligible.

The Court evaluated the petitioner's argument that the Labour Court ignored Exhibit-27 (the Purshis regarding new employment) and the fact that the workman was not terminated but left voluntarily.

The High Court declined to adjudicate on these specific legal merits. Instead, it focused on the "smallness of amount," noting that the total compensation awarded was only ₹50,000/-.

The Court reasoned that such a nominal amount did not warrant a full-scale merit-based review or the expenditure of further judicial resources, choosing instead to keep all legal grounds open for future cases while leaving the specific award undisturbed.

The Court clarified that this judgment does not constitute a legal precedent as it was delivered based on the specific facts and the small financial quantum involved. The petitioner was directed to deposit the ₹50,000/- compensation for the respondent-workman within six weeks from the date of the judgment.