1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Amreli in Reference (LCB) No.389/1998 dated 12.01.2007, whereby, the said reference was partly allowed and the petitioner has been directed to reinstate the respondent on his original post with continuity of service and 40% back wages.
2. The facts in brief are that the respondent was appointed as daily wager since 09.02.1974. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner orally terminated his service w.e.f. 01.05.1994. The respondent therefore, raised a dispute which, ultimately, culminated into a reference before the Court below. In the said Reference, the respondent workman filed the written statement denying all the allegations. The Labour Court, after considering the evidence on record, partly allowed the reference by passing the impugned award. Hence, this petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. Pursuant to the order dated 14.09.2007, the respondent workman is reinstated in service on 13.07.2007. Therefore, the only question that now requires consideration is with regard to grant of 40% back wages.
4. In the impugned award, the Court below has not given any cogent reasons while awarding 30% back wages. In the case of Ram Ashrey Singh v. Ram Bux Singh, (2003) II L.L.J. Pg.176, the Apex Court has held that a workman has no automatic entitlement to back wages since it is discretionary and has to be dealt with in accordance with the facts and circumstances of each case. Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of General Manager, Haryana Roadways v. Rudhan Singh, J.T. 2005 (6) S.C.,pg. 137, [2005 /(5) S.C.C.,pg.591], wherein, it has been held that an order for payment of back wages should not be passed in a mechanical manner but, a host of factors are to be taken into consideration before passing any such order.
4.1. It another decision in the case of A.P. State Road Transport & Ors., v. Abdul Kareem, (2005) 6 S.C.C. pg.36, the Apex Court has held that a workman is not entitled to any consequential relief on reinstatement as a matter of course unless specifically directed by forum granting reinstatement.
5. Looking to the facts of the case and the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the above decisions, I am of the opinion that the respondentworkman cannot be said to be entitled for any back wages. Hence, the impugned award granting back wages deserves to be quashed and set aside.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned award passed by the Labour Court is modified to the extent that the direction regarding grant of reinstatement on the original post with continuity of service and consequential benefits to the respondentworkman is confirmed, whereas, the direction regarding back wages is quashed and set aside. The respondent is entitled for continuity in service from the date of the award till reinstatement and from 07.09.2007, the respondent will be paid regular salary. The order shall be implemented within a period of six months from the date of receipt of writ of this order. With the above modification, the petition stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the above extent with no order as to costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) /phalguni/