Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs Mashribhai Virabhai Karangiya

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner­Corporation has challenged the judgement and award dated 31.05.2004, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot, in Reference (LCR) No. 358 of 2000, by which the Tribunal has partly allowed the reference filed by the respondent­workman and directed the petitioner­Corporation to reinstate the respondent­workman with 40% back wages.

2. The short facts leading to filing of this petition are that the respondent­workman was working as Conductor with petitioner­ Corporation. On 28.11.1987 on inspection it was found that some irregularities have been committed by the petitioner in collection of the fare against the tickets issued by him. After holding the inquiry, the petitioner­Corporation imposed punishment of stoppage of three increments with permanent effect. Thereafter, in exercise of the powers under Rule 9 of the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Employees Regulation Act, the appellate Authority suo moto reviewed the case of the respondent­workman and de novo inquiry was directed to be initiated against the respondent­workman. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the respondent­workman. Against the issuance of the Show cause Notice, the respondent­workman filed Regular Civil Case No. 732 of 1989 for a declaration and permanent injunction seeking to restrain the respondents from initiating departmental inquiry on the basis of the show cause notice dated 4.11.1989. The said suit was allowed by the Lower Court.

2.1. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner­Corporation filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 93 of 1990. The Appellate Court allowed the said Appeal by quashing and setting aside the order passed in Regular Civil case No. 732 of 1989. Against the said order the respondent­workman filed Second Appeal being S.A. No. 107 of 1999 before this Court. However, the said appeal was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 29.03.2012. Thereafter, administrative order No. 225 of 2000 in default case No. 142 of 1989 was passed by the petitioner­Corporation. Against the said order the respondent­ workman filed reference before the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot. The Tribunal vide judgement and award dated 31.05.2004, partly allowed the said reference and directed the petitioner­Corporation to reinstate the respondent­workman with 40% 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 40% 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 Tribunal. 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 Tribunal was not justified in awarding back wages to the respondent­workman. Therefore, the impugned order is quashed qua granting 40% back wages.

4. It appears from the record that Labour Court has, without examining the fact that respondent­workman has committed 44 defaults, passed the impugned order granting reinstatement with 40% back wages. This Court is of the view that if the relief granted by the Tribunal is substituted to eight increments with future effect, 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 eight 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 and other benefits including retiral benefits shall be paid within a period of six months from today, if the same has not been paid so far.

6. With the above directions, the petition stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute to th above extent.

pawan (K.S.JHAVERI,J.)