1

    NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3543  OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.12178  of 2009)

(CC: 3538/2009)

Sh. Narendra Kumar                                                             ……….Appellant Versus

The Regional Manager Punjab National Bank                       …..Respondents & Ors.

ORDER

H.L. Dattu,J.  

        Delay condoned.  

2) Leave granted and heard counsel for the parties insofar as the award of  

back wages is concerned.    

3) This is an appeal by Special Leave against the judgment and order dated  

23.5.2008 of the Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No. 3941 of 2008.  

4) The appellant was appointed as a sub staff by the respondent Bank on  

8.11.1989  on  daily  wage  basis  and  subsequently  his  services  were  

terminated on 12.9.1992.                                           

2

5) Aggrieved  by  the  order  of  termination,  the  appellant  had  raised  an  

Industrial  Dispute  in  the  year  1996.  In  his  claim  statement,  he  had  

asserted, that, the termination of his services by the respondents is illegal,  

irregular and invalid, and therefore, had requested the Labour Court to  

pass an award for a direction  to the respondents to reinstate  him into  

service with all consequential monetary and service benefits.  

6) The Labour Court vide its  order dated 31.12.2007, while allowing the  

claim in part, has directed the respondents to pay a sum of Rupees Fifty  

Thousand  only  (Rs.  50,000/-)  by  way  of  compensation  in  lieu  of  

reinstatement into service.   

7) The award passed by the Labour Court was the subject matter of the writ  

petition before the High Court at the instance of the workman.  The High  

Court has dismissed the writ petition in limine and thereby has affirmed  

the award passed by the Labour Court.  

8) The  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  submits  that  the  amount  of  

compensation awarded by the Labour Court in lieu of reinstatement into  

service vide its  order  dated 31.12.2007, is  meager  and,  therefore,  this  

court may exercise its discretion and enhance the compensation awarded  

by the Labour Court.  

9) Ordinarily, we would not have interfered with the concurrent findings of  

the labour court  and the High Court.   At the same time,  we can’t  be

3

obdurate to the hard realities of  life.  In matters of this nature, a humane  

and  pragmatic  approach  to  the  various  factors,  including  the  steep  

escalation in prices in the commodity market,  the cost of living, the cost  

of education of children etc. is required.  Therefore, keeping in view  the  

peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, in our view, it would be in  

the interest of justice, to enhance the compensation from Rupees Fifty  

Thousand (50,000/-) to One Lakh (1,00,000/-) only.  

10)Accordingly,  the  appeal  is  allowed in  part.  The  award  passed  by  the  

Labour  Court  in  ID  No.  52/1996  is   modified  by  enhancing  the  

compensation awarded from Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only)  

to Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only). Before parting with the case,  

we make it clear that this order shall not be treated as a precedent in any  

other case. No order as to costs.

                                                                                     …………………………………J.                                                                                        [TARUN CHATTERJEE]

                                                                                     …………………………………J.                                                                                        [ H.L. DATTU ] New Delhi, May 13, 2009.