whether the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the High Court is to be enhanced. Appellant who was an ex-serviceman was employed with the respondent-company as a Turner in the Auto Division w.e.f. 09.01.1978 drawing monthly wage of Rs.2,621/- and he worked till he was terminated on 07.05.1990. It is seen from the record that Mr. Kunjumon used harsh words and shoved the appellant towards the door and evidence would show that it was not a premeditated attack on Mr. Kunjumon. Both the Labour Court as well as the High Court recorded concurrent findings of fact that the misconduct of the appellant was proved on the basis of the evidence and that the punishment of dismissal was shockingly disproportionate. When the Labour Court passed the award, the appellant was about 59 years and he attained the age of superannuation in the year 2002. Considering the number of years which the appellant worked with the respondent and the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the interest of justice would be met if the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- is enhanced to Rs.5,00,000/- which is inclusive of the compensation awarded by the High Court. The judgment of Bombay High Court is accordingly modified and the compensation is enhanced to Rs.5,00,000/- which shall be payable by the respondent within a period of eight weeks and in the event of default the same shall be payable with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and the appeal is partly allowed. No order as to costs.

                                                                  REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5701 OF 2015
                 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 26629/2014)

                        SHRI                 TALUKDAR                  SINGH
...Appellant

                                   Versus

TATA ENGINEERING &
LOCOMOTIVE CO. Ltd.                                    ...Respondent


                               J U D G M E N T


R. BANUMATHI, J.

Leave granted.
2.          This appeal arises out of the order passed by the High Court  of
Bombay in Writ Petition No.3646 of 2001 dated 19.06.2014, in and  by  which,
the High Court enhanced the retrenchment compensation of Rs.6,049/-  awarded
by the Labour Court to Rs. 1,00,000/- without any interest.
  3.               A  charge-sheet  dated  07.05.1988  was  issued  to   the
appellant for committing the  misconduct  of  slapping  his  colleague,  Mr.
Kunjumon who  was  working  with  the  respondent-company.  An  enquiry  was
conducted against the appellant and  the  services  of  the  appellant  were
terminated on 07.05.1990. The appellant challenged  his  termination  and  a
reference  was  made  to  the  Labour  Court,  Pune.  By  the  award   dated
28.02.2000, Labour Court held that the enquiry  against  the  appellant  was
fair and proper and the misconduct was proved.  However,  the  Labour  Court
held  that  the  punishment  of  dismissal  from  service   was   shockingly
disproportionate and awarded retrenchment compensation of Rs.6,049/- to  the
appellant. Being aggrieved, the appellant  filed  writ  petition  contending
that the punishment  of  dismissal  was  harsh  and  that  the  retrenchment
compensation of Rs. 6,049/- awarded was  no  compensation  at  all.  By  the
impugned  judgment,  the  High  Court  while  upholding  the  punishment  of
dismissal,   enhanced    the    compensation    to    Rs.1,00,000/-    minus
Rs.6,049/- which was already paid to the  appellant.  Still  aggrieved,  the
appellant has preferred this appeal.
4.               We have heard Mr. S. Ravi Shankar, the learned counsel  for
the appellant and the Learned Senior Counsel    Mr.  C.U.  Singh,  appearing
for  the  respondent-management  and  perused  the  impugned  judgment   and
material on record.
5.                The  short  question  is  whether  the   compensation   of
Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the High Court is to be  enhanced.   Appellant  who
was an ex-serviceman was employed with the respondent-company  as  a  Turner
in the Auto Division w.e.f. 09.01.1978 drawing monthly  wage  of  Rs.2,621/-
and he worked till he was terminated on 07.05.1990.  It  is  seen  from  the
record that Mr. Kunjumon used harsh words and shoved the  appellant  towards
the door and evidence would show that it was not a  premeditated  attack  on
Mr. Kunjumon.  Both the Labour Court as well  as  the  High  Court  recorded
concurrent findings of fact that the misconduct of the appellant was  proved
on the basis of the evidence  and  that  the  punishment  of  dismissal  was
shockingly disproportionate. When the Labour Court  passed  the  award,  the
appellant was about      59 years and he attained the age of  superannuation
in the year 2002. Considering  the  number  of  years  which  the  appellant
worked with the respondent and the facts and circumstances of the  case,  we
are of  the  view  that  the  interest  of  justice  would  be  met  if  the
compensation  of  Rs.1,00,000/-  is  enhanced  to  Rs.5,00,000/-  which   is
inclusive of the compensation awarded by the High  Court.  The  judgment  of
Bombay High Court is accordingly modified and the compensation  is  enhanced
to Rs.5,00,000/- which shall be payable by the respondent  within  a  period
of eight weeks and in the event of default the same shall  be  payable  with
interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and the appeal is partly allowed.  No  order
as to costs.


                                                                …………………………J.
                                                     (T.S. THAKUR)


                                                                …………………………J.
                   (V.GOPALA GOWDA)


                                                                …………………………J.
                                                        (R. BANUMATHI)
New Delhi;
July 24, 2015


ITEM NO.1H-For Judgment        COURT NO.2               SECTION XV

               S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

C.A. No. 5701/2015 @ Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)  No(s).
26629/2014

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 19/06/2014 in WP
No. 3646/2001 passed by the High Court Of Bombay)

TALUKDAR SINGH                                     Petitioner(s)
                                VERSUS
TATA ENGINEERING AND LOCOMOTIVE CO. LTD            Respondent(s)

Date : 24/07/2015 This appeal was called on for pronouncement of JUDGMENT
today.

For Petitioner(s)    Mr. S. Ravi Shankar,Adv.

For Respondent(s)       Mr. C.U. Singh, Sr. Adv.
                        Mr. Debmalya Banerjee, Adv.
                        Mr. Aman Singh, Adv.
                        Mr. Manish Sharma, Adv.
                        Mrs. Manik Karanjawala
                     For M/s. Karanjawala & Co.

            Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi  pronounced  the  judgment  of
the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur,  Hon'ble  Mr.  Justice
V. Gopala Gowda and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi.
            Leave granted.
            The appeal is partly allowed in terms of the  Signed  Reportable
Judgment.

      (VINOD KR.JHA)                         (VEENA KHERA)
       COURT MASTER                                COURT MASTER

          (Signed Reportable judgment is placed on the file)