The High Court of Delhi held that reinstatement was not warranted, but the Labour Court’s compensation award of Rs.15,000 was grossly inadequate for ten years of service.
Award of further compensation of Rs.3 lakh over and above the amount already paid to the petitioner.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~52
LTG INDIA PVT. LIMITED ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Somiran Sharma, Advocate.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
W.P.(C) 3584/2011
Page 1 of 2
this Court is of the view that the reinstatement is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of this case. However, this Court is of the view that the compensation of Rs.15,000/- awarded by the Labour Court is grossly inadequate. The petitioner had worked with the respondent for about ten years. Considering the minimum wages for a driver and taking the ten years service of the petitioner into consideration, this Court is of the view that enhancement of Rs.3 lakh is warranted in this case.
MARCH 15, 2017 dk
J.R. MIDHA, J.
W.P.(C) 3584/2011
Page 2 of 2
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the compensation awarded by the Labour Court in lieu of reinstatement was adequate for a ten-year service duration.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to further enhancement of compensation due to insufficient quantum awarded.
Whether the reinstitution order against the respondent is warranted in the given facts.
Suresh Kumar
LTG India Pvt. Limited
J.R. Midha
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
