1. This petition has been filed against the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Bhavnagar in Reference (LCB) No.10/1994 & 425/1995 dated 14.10.2003 whereby, the references were partly allowed and the petitioner-Panchayat was directed to reinstate the respondent on his original post with continuity of service and 75% back wages. The petitioner has also challenged the order passed by the Labour Court, Bhavnagar in Misc. Application No.34/2004 filed by the petitioner-Panchayat dated 16.02.2005 whereby, the said application was rejected.
2. The facts in brief are that the respondent herein was working on a Class-IV Post in the petitioner- Panchayat since the year 1980. It is the case of the respondent that his services were orally terminated by the Sarpanch on 16.08.1993 without following due procedure. Therefore, he raised a dispute, which culminated into Reference (IT) No.10/1994. Subsequently, the respondent was reinstated by the petitioner-Panchayat on 01.11.1994. However, by written order dated 28.08.1995, the respondent was again terminated from service. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent raised another dispute, which culminated into Reference (IT) No.425/1995. Since both the References were filed by the respondent against the same party, they were heard together and by impugned judgment and award, they came to be partly allowed.
3. Against the said award, the petitioner filed an Application under Rule-26A of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules, 1966 for restoration of the original reference, which was numbered as Misc. Application No.34/2004. However, the said application was rejected by impugned order dated 16.02.2005. Hence, this petition.
4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. Mr. MH Rathod learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-Panchayat submitted that in pursuance of the order passed by this Court dated 26.09.2005 by which the operation of the impugned award was stayed only qua the payment of 75% back wages to the respondent, the petitioner-Panchayat has reinstated the respondent in service on 21.09.2005. He fairly conceded that the only issue which is required to be now decided by this Court is with regard to back wages.
5. It appears that in the statement of claim filed before the Labour Court, the respondent-workman has not made any averment regarding the claim for back wages.
In the case of Ram Ashrey Singh v. Ram Bux Singh, (2003) II L.L.J. Pg.176, the Apex Court 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 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, the Apex Court 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.
6. Considering 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 respondent shall not be entitled for any back wages. Hence, the impugned award qua granting 75% back wages to the respondent deserves to be quashed and set aside.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned common award is modified to the extent that the direction qua granting reinstatement on the original post with continuity of service stands confirmed, whereas, the direction qua awarding 75% back wages is quashed and set aside. It is, however, made clear that the respondent-workman shall be entitled for regular salary from the date of the award, i.e. 14.10.2003 till he was reinstated in service on 21.09.2005. Such payment to be made in 18 (eighteen) equal monthly installments along with the regular salary starting from the month of January 2013. If there is any breach in making the above payment, then the respondent shall be entitled for interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the outstanding amount, which shall be recovered from the personal account of the authority issuing the said order. The respondent shall be given the benefit of continuity of service, as awarded by the Labour Court and all consequential benefits therefor, within a period of six months from today, if the same has not been paid so far. With the above directions, the petition stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the above extent with no order as to costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) PRAVIN