1.0 This petition is directed against the judgement and award dated 26.06.2003 passed by the Industrial Tribunal No.2, Rajkot in Reference (I.T.) No. 75 of 2001 whereby the reference of the respondent has been partly allowed by setting aside the punishment orders and imposed the punishments of stoppage of annual increments for six months with temporary effect and directed the petitioner Corporation to pay 50% backwages of difference of salary and consequential benefits to the respondent.
2.0 The respondent was serving as a Driver in the petitioner Corporation. When he was on duty on 17.01.1997 on UnaRajkot Route, respondent committed serious irregularities. Therefore, he was chargesheeted and departmental inquiry was initiated. At the end of departmental inquiry, order of punishment of stoppage of annual increment for three years with future effect was passed. The respondent filed first departmental appeal which came be to be rejected. The respondent filed Second Appeal which also came to be rejected. During the period from 11.05.2000 to 16.06.2000, the respondent has again committed similar serious misconduct. Hence, after holding inquiry in accordance with law, the competent authority of the Corporation imposed punishment of stoppage of annual increments for 5 years with future effect. The said default case of the respondent came to be reviewed by the Reviewing Authority. Looking to the gravity and seriousness of the misconduct committed by the respondent,, the reviewing authority issued show cause notice and set aside the punishment order of stoppage of increments for five years and enhanced the punishment by placing the respondent at basic salary of driver category for five years. The respondent, therefore, raised dispute which was numbered as Reference (I.T.) No. 75 of 2001. After adjudicating the matter, the Tribunal has passed the aforesaid award.
3.0 Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that there were nine default cases against the respondent. Therefore, penalty imposed by the learned Tribunal is too lenient looking to the gravity of misconduct.
4.0 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 9 (nine ) defaults committed by the respondent. It appears that the learned Tribunal 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, the learned Tribunal ought to have imposed penalty in consonance with the gravity of the misconduct. Having considered the matter at length, I am of the view that imposition of penalty of stoppage of one increment with future effect would meet the ends of justice.
5.0 So far as 50% back wages is concerned, the Tribunal has not given any cogent reasons for awarding back wages to the respondent workman. 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.
6.0 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 Under the circumstances, the petition is partly allowed. A penalty of stoppage of one increment with future effect shall be imposed upon the respondentworkman. The direction qua the backwages is quashed. The award of the Labour Court is modified accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.
8.0 The respondent shall be paid all the consequential benefits and the aforesaid award shall be implemented within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of the order of this Court.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru*