1. By way of this petition, the petitionerCorporation has challenged the judgement and award dated 3.7.2006, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Nadiad, in Reference (LCN) No. 124 of 1998, by which the Labour Court has partly allowed the reference filed by the respondent herein, and directed the petitioner Corporation to reinstate the respondentworkman with 30% back wages.
2. The short facts leading to filing of this petition are that the respondentworkman was serving as Conductor with petitioner Corporation. However, vide order dated 26.7.1997, the service of the petitioner has been terminated by the petitionerCorporation on the ground that he had remained unauthorizedly absent from 28.10.1996 to 10.11.1996. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent Workman filed Reference before the Labour Court. The Labour Court after considering the evidence on record has partly allowed the said reference and directed the petitionercorporation to reinstate the respondent with 30% back wages. Hence, this petition.
3. I have heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the material on record. So far as the aspect of awarding 30% back wages is concerned, I find that no averment regarding th same has been made by the respondentworkman in his statement of Claim 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. 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 respondent cannot be said to be entitled for any back wages. The Court below was not justified in awarding back wages to the respondentworkman. Therefore, the impugned order is quashed qua granting 30% back wages.
4. It appears from the record that Labour Court has, without examining the fact that respondentworkman has committed 35 defaults, passed the impugned order granting reinstatement with 30% back wags. However, keeping in mind the fact that the respondent workman has attained the age of superannuation, therefore, sympathetic view should be taken in such matters. This Court is of the view that if the relief granted by Labour Court is substituted to five increments with future effects, the same would meet ends of justice. The impugned order of the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the relief granted by the Labour Court is substituted by imposing the penalty of stoppage of five increments with future effect. It is however, clarified that respondentworkman shall not be entitle for any back wages.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the present petition is partly allowed.
The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. The rest of the award remains unaltered. The monetary benefits arising from the passing of this order shall be paid within a period of six months from today, if the same has not been paid so far.
6. With th above directions, the petition stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute to th above extent.
(K.S.JHAVERI,J.) pawan