1.0 Rule. Learned advocates for the respective parties waive service of notice of rule.
2.0 With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing.
3.0 This petition is directed against the judgement and award dated 06.08.2011 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Court No.2, Vadodara in Reference (LCV) No. 621 of 2007 whereby the petitioner is directed to reinstate respondent No.1 workman with continuity of service and 30% backwages.
4.0 The respondent No. 1 was serving as a Conductor in the petitionerCorporation. While he was on duty on 04.06.2004, the bus was intercepted by Inspection Squad and several financial irregularities were found. Therefore, he was chargesheeted and departmental inquiry was initiated. At the end of departmental inquiry, order of dismissal was passed on 26.08.2005. The respondent No. 1 therefore, raised dispute which was numbered as Reference (LCV) No. 621 of 2007. After adjudicating the matter, the Labour Court has passed the aforesaid award.
5.0 Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the relevant record. As a result of this exercise, it is found that there are as many as 49 defaults committed by respondent No.1. It appears that the Labour Court has not considered the past record of the respondent while exercising powers under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In view of such past defaults, some punishment ought to have been imposed by the the Labour Court. Having considered the matter at length, I am of the view that imposition of penalty of stoppage of nine increments with future effect would meet the ends of justice.
6.0 So far as 30% back wages is concerned, the Labour Court has not given any cogent reasons for awarding back wages to the respondentworkman. In view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ram Ashrey Singh v. Ram Bux Singh reported in (2003) II L.L.J. 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 reported in J.T. 2005(6) SC 137 [2005(5) SCC 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.
6.1 It would also be relevant to refer to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of A.P. State Road Tranport & Ors. v. Abdul Kareem reported in (2005) 6 SCC 36, wherein it has been held that a workman is not entitled to any consequential relief of reinstatement as a matter of course unless specifically directed by forum granting reinstatement. In above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the respondent cannot be said to be entitled for back wages.
7.0 Accordingly, a punishment of stoppage of nine increments with future effect shall be imposed upon the respondent No.1. The order of the reinstatement with continuity of service is confirmed. However, the award of backwages is quashed and set aside. The judgement and award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.
8.0 The respondent No. 1 will be reinstated within one month from today and the monetary benefits will be given within six months. The imposition of penalty shall be implemented within a period of six months from today.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru*