1. By way of this petition, the petitionerState has prayed to quash and set aside the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Rajkot in Reference (LCR) No.413/1989 dated 15.12.2005.
2. The facts in brief are that the respondent was appointed as a Cleaner on purely temporary and adhoc and daily wage basis from June, 1986. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent was appointed on a particular project and that since his services were not required, his services were brought to an end. Against the said action, the respondent raised an industrial dispute, which, ultimately, culminated into a reference before the Court below. The said reference was allowed, whereby, the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent on his original post 20% back wages, by way of passing the impugned order. Hence, this petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. After appreciating the evidence on record, the Court below found that the petitioner State had not complied with the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the I.D. Act before terminating the services of the respondent though the respondent had worked for the period from June, 1986 to 17.07.1988. Therefore, the action of the petitionerState terminating the services of the respondent was illegal and improper and the Court below was completely justified in granting the respondent reinstatement.
4. However, so far as the question of back wages is concerned, the Court below has not given any cogent reasons for awarding back wages to the workman. 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. 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 respondentworkman cannot be said to be entitled for any back wages. Hence, the impugned award grating back wages deserves to be quashed and set aside.
6. Consequently, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned award of the Labour Court is modified to the extent that the direction qua granting reinstatement to the original post is confirmed. However, the direction qua 20% back wages is quashed and set aside. The order to be implemented within a period of 30 days from the date of writ of this order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the above extent with no order as to costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) /phalguni/