1. This petition has been preferred against the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Nandiad-Anand in Reference LCN No.261/1990 dated 05.02.2007 whereby, the reference was partly allowed and the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent-workman on his original post with continuity of service and 50% back wages.
2. The facts in brief are that the respondent herein was serving as a Go-down Watchman with the petitioner-Department. However, the Sub-division in which the respondent was serving was closed down with effect from 30.11.1986. Thereafter, the respondent herein was not given employment in any other Division. Being aggrieved by the said action, the respondent raised an industrial dispute, which culminated into a reference before the Labour Court. After hearing both sides, the Labour Court partly allowed the reference, by way of the impugned award. Hence, this petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. While admitting the matter on 26.07.2007, this Court had stayed the operation of the impugned award qua granting 50% back wages only on condition that the respondent is reinstated in service. Pursuant to the said order, the respondent was reinstated and has been continued in service. From the records of the case, it appears that the provisions of Sections 25(F) of the I.D. Act were not duly complied before discharging the respondent from service and therefore, the Labour Court directed to reinstate the respondent in service. In my opinion, the reasonings given by the Labour Court while directing reinstatement with continuity in service are just and legal and I concur with the same.
4. However, so far as the issue of back wages is concerned, I find that no averment regarding the same has been made by the respondent-workman in his Statement of Claim filed before the Labour Court. 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. In the case of A.P. State Road Transport & Ors., v. Abdul Kareem, (2005) 6 S.C.C. pg.36, it has been 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.
4.1 Looking to the facts of the case and the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the above decisions, no back wages could have been awarded to the respondent. Hence, the Court below was not justified in awarding back wages to the respondent-workman.
5. In view of the above, the impugned award of the Labour Court is required to be modified accordingly. Thus, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned award is modified to the extent that the direction qua granting reinstatement with continuity in service is confirmed whereas, the direction qua granting 50% back wages is quashed and set aside. The impugned award stands modified accordingly. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the above extent with no order as to costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) Pravin/*