Allowed

Municipal Corp.Bhilai v. Smt.Shyamli Chatterjee and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC2 Dec 2013WP/1146/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, exercising powers under Article 227, set aside the Labour Court's order awarding Rs. 5,00,000 compensation and awarded Rs. 2,00,000 as just and equitable alternative relief instead of reinstatement.

What did the court decide?

Labour Court order set aside; lump sum compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 granted to respondent; interest @ 9% if not paid within 6 weeks.

Municipal Corp.Bhilai Vs Smt.Shyamli… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2013)

¶1

Writ Petition N.o

¶2

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, BHILAI THROUGH : The Commissioner, Office, G.E.Road,, Supela-Bhi/ai, Tah. & Dist. Durg ( C.G.)

¶3

PETYTIOAER

¶4

VERSUS

¶5

Smt. Shyamalz' Chatterjee, Wfe ofShri R M Chamjee aged 46 yrs R/o QrNo I/Q Street 19 Sector—6 BhzlazNagar Tah &Dzst Durg (CW

¶6

v . . M Kn kwzw RESPONDENT

¶7

Preszdmg 0j§?cer, . Labour Court Durg (Under^{IndustrzalDzsputesAct1947)} Ofce UtazRoad Durg Tah. & Dist. Durg ( C. G.)

¶8

WRITPETITION UNDERARIYCLE227 OFINDIANCONSTITUTION

¶9

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH^ATBILASPUR

¶10

l :No. 1146 of 2002

¶11

PETITIONERS :: Municipal Corporation,^Bhilaj

¶12

VERSUS

¶13

iand RESPONDENTS /:5 Smt Shyamah Chatterj ee ‘ i another

¶14

(WRIT^{PETITIONUNoERARTICLE227} oF^{THE;CONSTITUTIONOF} INDIA)

¶15

(§B::^{Hon'bleMr.N.K.Agarwal,JJ}

¶16

‘^Present : Mr H B Agarwal Semor Advocate Wlth^Mrs Preet1 Yadav Counsel for the petltloner Mr Amr1to Das Counsel for respondent^NO 1

¶17

ORAL ORDER

¶18

(02.12.2013)‘

¶19

Challenge in this petition is to^{theorderdated30.l0.2001} passed in 77/I.D. Act/2000, vivhereby^{theLabourCourt,Durghasdirectedthe} » petitioner to reinstate respondent No. 1 or else to pay compensation @ Rs.5,Q0,000/- in lieu Of retrenchment.

¶20

.(2) While submitting that the petitioner is not ready to reinstate respondent no.1, the'Only contention raiSed^{byMr.Agarwal,learned} Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/Corporation, is that the ‘Of retrenchment Court'below has erredⁱⁿ granting^{compensationinlieu} to respondent No 1 to the extent of Rs 5 OO 000/ According to Mr Agarwal respondent No 1 was engaged as Typist^{ondailywagebasis} "on 16.09.1985 and worked^{onlyupto29.02.2000where—aftershehas}

¶21

¶22

‘O0,/—‘as bnee disnegaged, and thcmfbre; the. amOuritaOf Rs. 1,000 comensationp in luie of rnsmenteitate shoudl hvea been gtraned by the Court below.

¶23

(3) On the other hand, Mr. Amrito Dsa, lerneda couelns appearing for respdenton No. 1 supported the order impugned adn sumittedb :. in any case, in the facts and circumstances of the case, respondent No.1 i s entitled for compenation.s in lieu o f reinstemenatt aettlas^t o the extnte of R3,s. 0 000.,/(4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings^{anddocumentsappendedthereto.} (5) Respondent No. 1 wsa enadgge as daily wgera on 16.09.85 adn her engmentgae continued for autbo 1 5 years . Vied order dated 30. 120010., the Laobur Court granted respondent No.1 alternative relief of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/— in lieu of retrenchment. Admittedly, after 2 0 1, respondent No.1 is sillt in jo,putb.rsuan to the stay orde r pedass^by tish Cuort adn gtinget salary. In a case such as the present one, i t appears to me that instead of COpensationm of Rs.,00,0005 Rs. 2,00,000/^— lakhs,^‘as awarded by the Labour Court, compensation of would meet the ends^vofjustice.

¶24

¶25

(6) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in my ix opinion, compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/— in lieu of reinstatement shall be appropriate, just and equitable. Accordingly, the order of Labour ¢

m Hm,_

g‘

‘31

Court is set—aside and instead respondent No. 1 is granted lump—sum compensation 0f Rs. 2,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement. Such payment shall be made by the petitioner Within a period of 6 weeks from today, failing which, the same shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order.

¶31

(7) There shall be no order as t0 costs.

¶32

“/
Sd/—
N. K. Agarwal
<br>Judge x
a.

Municipal Corp.Bhilai v. Smt.Shyamli Chatterjee and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Municipal Corp.Bhilai v. Smt.Shyamli Chatterjee and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Kumar Dwivedi Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chudamani Sidar Vs the State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Dr.K.P.Dubey Vs State

Shri Radheshyam Dansena Vs State Bank of India and Ors.

Suresh Kumar Thakur and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

The State of C.G. Thrg. Supri.Org. Vs Sudama Ram Netam