Delhi High Court Grants Rs 3 Lakh Compensation to Retrenched AIIMS Workers

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has awarded Rs 3 lakh each to two former daily wagers of AIIMS, Amarjit Singh and Ved Prakash, who were terminated in 1995. The court declared their retrenchment illegal but declined reinstatement, citing the passage of over three decades since their dismissal. Justice Shail Jain delivered the judgment on July 29, emphasizing that illegal retrenchment does not automatically warrant reinstatement or full back wages.

Compensation Instead of Reinstatement

The court noted that AIIMS had failed to produce employment records despite repeated notices, justifying an adverse inference against the institution. Justice Jain held that this unexplained withholding of records entitled the workers to compensation rather than reinstatement. “Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, this court considers it just and appropriate to award each of the petitioners a lump-sum compensation of Rs 3 lakh in full and final settlement of all claims arising out of the illegal retrenchment of their services,” the judgment stated.

The Case’s Long Legal Journey

Amarjit Singh and Ved Prakash had joined AIIMS in 1993 and 1992, respectively, but their services were terminated without notice or retrenchment compensation in 1995. After conciliation efforts failed, their disputes were referred to the labour court, which rejected their claims in 2004, citing insufficient proof of 240 days of continuous service. Challenging this decision, the workers approached the Delhi High Court, arguing that AIIMS had failed to produce attendance and wage records despite repeated requests.

Justice Jain set aside the labour court’s order, holding that the retrenchment was illegal. However, given the lapse of over 30 years, the court declined reinstatement and instead directed AIIMS to pay compensation within eight weeks.

Arguments from Both Sides

The petitioners’ counsel, Ashok Gurnani and Mukul Gupta, argued that the labour court erred in its findings and highlighted AIIMS’ failure to produce critical records. They also pointed out that junior daily-wagers were later regularized, entitling Singh and Prakash to similar relief.

AIIMS, represented by advocates V S R Krishna and V Shashank Kumar, countered that the workers were engaged on a casual, daily-wage basis and not against permanent posts. They added that the petitioners had not proven unemployment after their termination, making them ineligible for reinstatement or back wages.

Why This Matters

The ruling underscores the importance of procedural fairness in employment practices and highlights the legal consequences of withholding employment records. While the court acknowledged the illegality of the retrenchment, it balanced the relief granted with the realities of time and the nature of the workers’ engagement. This case serves as a reminder that compensation, rather than reinstatement, may be the appropriate remedy in long-pending disputes.

Source: Indian Express