1. This petition has been preferred against the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Nadiad in Reference (LCA) No.47/2001 dated 30.11.2006 whereby, the reference was partly allowed and the order of dismissal dated 30.09.1999 was quashed and set aside and since the respondent- workman had expired before passing of the award, the Labour Court directed the petitioner-Corporation to grant 50% back wages by considering him to be in service from the date of his termination till he died, along with other admissible monetary benefits. However, a penalty of stoppage of one increment with future effect was also imposed upon the respondent- workman while passing the said award.
2. The facts in brief are that the respondent- workman was serving as Clerk with the petitioner- Corporation at the Khambhat Depot. The respondent was served with a charge-sheet on the ground of remaining absent from duty unauthorizedly for the period from 07.04.1999 to 15.04.1999 and 23.04.1999 to 24.05.1999. Departmental enquiry was conducted and ultimately, vide order dated 30.04.1999, the respondent was dismissed from service. Against the said order, the respondent raised a dispute, which culminated into a reference before the Labour Court, Nadiad. After hearing both the sides, the Labour Court partly allowed the reference as aforesaid, by impugned award dated 30.11.2006. Hence, this petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for both the sides. It appears from the record that the respondent was found guilty of remaining absent from duty, without prior permission of the concerned authority. He was not found guilty of any serious misconduct or insubordination. Considering the said aspects, the punishment of dismissal from service imposed by the petitioner is very harsh and the Labour Court has rightly set aside the same. But, looking to the fact that the respondent-workman had committed thirteen (13) defaults in the past, the penalty imposed by the Labour Court of stoppage of one increment with future effect is on the lower side. In my opinion, ends of justice would be met, if the penalty is substituted by imposing stoppage of two increments with future effect.
4. So far as the aspect of awarding 50% 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. 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 50% back wages to the respondent-workman.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned award of the Labour Court is modified to the extent that the penalty of stoppage of one increment with future effect is substituted by imposing the penalty of stoppage of two increments with future effect. The rest of the award remains unaltered. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. The monetary benefits arising from the passing of this order shall be paid within a period of six months from today, along with other retirement benefits, if the same has not been paid so far. Needless to say that the benefits shall be computed by considering the respondent-workman to be in ‘continuous’ service from the date he was dismissed from service till his death. With the above directions, the petition stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the above extent.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) Pravin/*