1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the judgement and award dated 01.09.2007 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ahmedabad, in Reference (LCA) No. 723 of 2002, whereby the Labour Court has partly allowed the said reference and directed the respondent to reinstate the petitioner with 25% back wages.
2. The short facts leading to filing of this petition are that the respondentworkman was working as helper with the respondent. However, on 01.04.2002 the services of the respondent was orally terminated by the petitioner. Against the action of the petitioner, the respondentworkman raised dispute, which culminated into to Reference(LCA) No. 723 of 2002 before the Labour Court, Ahmedabad. The Labour after considering th evidence on record partly allowed the said reference and directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent workman in service with 25% back wages. Hence, this petition.
3. This matter was listed on 29.11.2012 for hearing and at that time the matter was adjourned to 11.12.2012 at the request of learned counsel for the respondent. Thereafter, the matter was listed on 11.12.2012. However, on that day, learned advocate for the respondent was not present. Therefore, this Court has adjourned the matter to today and directed the learned learned advocate for the respondent to make alternative arrangement before the next date of hearing, if he is not available. Even, today, learned counsel for the respondent is not present. It is also required to be noted that this matter is fixed for final hearing at the instance of learned counsel for the respondent. Therefore, this Court has no other option, but to proceed with the matter on merits.
4. I have heard learned advocate for the petitioner and perused the material on record. I find that the direction regarding reinstatement of the petitioner passed by the Labour Court is just and proper. So far as the the direction regarding grant of back wages is concerned, no averment regarding the same has been made by the respondentworkman in his Statement of Claim filed before the Labour Court. Even otherwise, in view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ram Ashrey Singh v. Ram Bux Singh, (2003) II L.L.J. Pg.176, 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.
5. It would also be relevant to refer to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of A.P. State Road Transport & Ors., v. Abdul Kareem, (2005) 6 S.C.C. pg.36, wherein 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.
6. 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 petitioner cannot be said to be entitled for any back wages. Hence, the Court below was not justified in awarding 25% back wages to the petitionerworkman. Therefore, the impugned judgement and award of the Labour Court is quashed and set aside qua granting 25% back wages.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the present petition is partly allowed. The judgement and award of the Labour Court stands modified to the above extent. The rest of the award remains unaltered. Rule is made absolute to the above extent. The petitioner is directed to implement this order within a period of one month from today. Direct service is permitted.
pawan (K.S.JHAVERI,J.)