Partly allowed

Punj Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Nanhe Singh

Delhi HC24 Apr 2019W.P.(C)/8741/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court upheld the compensation awarded by the Labour Court to a terminated security guard but set aside the 18% per annum interest and reduced litigation costs from Rs.10,000 to Rs.7,500, directing release of the deposited amount.

What did the court decide?

Compensation of Rs.1,92,000/- upheld; 18% interest set aside; litigation costs reduced to Rs.7,500/-; amount ordered released to respondent.

Punj Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs Nanhe Singh — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

$~8

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 24^th April, 2019

¶4

- W.P.(C) 8741/2009 PUNJ SONS PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Ashwani K. Sakhuja and Mr. Puneet Saini, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

NANHE SINGH ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Kunwar C.M. Khan, Ms. Sheeba Khan, Mr. Shoaib Khan and Mr. Aditya Tanwar, Advocates.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

¶10

JUDGEMENT (ORAL)

¶11

The petitioner has challenged the award of the Labour Court whereby compensation of Rs.1,92,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of claim till realization and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/has been awarded to the respondent.

¶12

The petitioner appointed the respondent as a security guard on 12^th January, 1988. On 04^th May, 1992, the petitioner found the respondent sleeping whereupon the petitioner issued a charge sheet and conducted an inquiry against the respondent. The petitioner terminated the respondent on 30^th May, 1992 whereupon the respondent raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court.

¶13

Page 1 of 3

¶14

W.P.(C) 8741/2009

¶15

The Labour Court awarded compensation of Rs.1,92,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the compensation awarded by the Labour Court to the respondent is on a higher side and the same be reduced.

¶17

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the compensation awarded by the Labour Court is fair and reasonable and does not warrant any interference.

¶18

The petitioner deposited Rs.1,92,000/- on 03^rd July, 2009 with the Registrar General of this Court in terms of the order dated 25^th May, 2009. The petitioner has also deposited litigation expenses of Rs.7,500/- with the Registrar General of this Court. The amount of Rs.1,92,000/- is lying in fixed deposit whereas the litigation expenses of Rs.7,500/- deposited by the petitioner has been released to the respondent.

¶19

This Court is of the view that the compensation amount of Rs.1,92,000/- awarded by the Labour Court to the respondent is just, fair and reasonable and does not warrant any interference. However, the interest of 18% per annum awarded by the Labour Court is not justified and is hereby set aside. The litigation expenses awarded by the Labour Court are reduced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.7,500/-.

¶20

The respondent present in Court along with the counsel is satisfied with the aforesaid reduction of the award amount and submits that the amount deposited by the petitioner be released to the respondent.

¶21

In the facts and circumstances of this case, the compensation of

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

W.P.(C) 8741/2009

¶24

Rs.1,92,000/- awarded by the Labour Court is upheld. However, the interest of 18% per annum awarded by the Labour Court is set aside. The litigation cost awarded by the Labour Court is reduced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.7,500/-. The writ petition is partially allowed to the above extent. 10. The Registrar General is directed to release Rs.1,92,000/- deposited by the petitioner along with interest accrued thereon to the respondent within three weeks from today.

¶25

Copy of this judgment be given dasti to counsels for the parties under signature of Court Master.

¶26

J.R. MIDHA, J.

¶27

APRIL 24, 2019 ak

¶28

Page 3 of 3

¶29

W.P.(C) 8741/2009

Punj Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Nanhe Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punj Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Nanhe Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satish Kumar & Ors. Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

Bhuvanesh Vyas Vs I.G.N.O.U.

Sundeep Bhutoria Vs Indian Federation of United Nations Association & Ors.

Reliance Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bureau of Pharma Public Sector Undertakings of India and Anr.

Yamuna Vihar Residents Welfare and Cultural Association Vs East Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Ghalib Memorial Co-Operative Group Housing Society Ltd. & Anr. Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

K. D. Sharma Vs the Chairman and Managing Director, Dena Bank and Ors.

Sh. Shyam Singh Choudhary and Anr. Vs Union of India and Anr.

M/S Bses Yamuna Power Ltd. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Another

Bharat Commercial Roadways Vs Ram Kumar

Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation Vs Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs & Ors.

Landmark Property Development and Company Limited & Ors. Vs Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Limited & Ors.

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Rakesh & Ors.

Monika Vs Amit Sabharwal