1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Rajkot in Reference (LCR) No.169/1995 dated 11.05.2007, whereby, the said reference was partly allowed and the petitioner has been directed to reinstate the respondent on his original post with 25% back wages.
2. The facts in brief are that the respondent was serving as a Peon in the petitionerCompany. It is the case of the respondent that his services were orally terminated on 10.06.1989 without giving any notice or notice pay or retrenchment compensation. Therefore, the respondent raised an industrial dispute, which, ultimately, culminated into a reference before the Court below. In the said Reference, the respondent workman filed the written statement denying all the allegations. The Labour Court, after considering the evidence on record, partly allowed the reference by passing the impugned award. Hence, this petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. On 17.12.2007, this Court passed the following order in this matter;
“Heard learned AGP Mr. Dwivedi for the petitioner and Mr. Viral V. Dave, learned Advocate for the respondent.
1. Learned AGP Mr. Dwivedi has submitted that in view of the orders of this court dated 7.9.2007, respondent has been reinstated in service on 2nd November, 2007 and he is working with the petitioner. The statement made by the learned AGP Mr. Dwivedi on behalf of the petitioner has been confirmed by the learned Advocate Mr. Dave for the respondent.
2. In view of the aforesaid facts, considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for the parties, questions raised in this petition would require detailed examination.
Hence, Rule. Ad interim relief granted earlier on 7th September, 2007 in terms of para 8(iii) qua back wages alone shall continue to operate till the mater is finally heard and decided by this Court.
4. Pursuant to the passing of the above order, the respondent has been reinstated in service. Therefore, the only question that now requires consideration is with regard to grant of 25% back wages.
5. In the impugned award, the Court below has not given any cogent reasons while awarding 40% back wages. 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.
5.1. It another decision in the case of A.P. State Road Transport & Ors., v. Abdul Kareem, (2005) 6 S.C.C. pg.36, the Apex Court has 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.
6. 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 granting back wages deserves to be quashed and set aside.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned award passed by the Labour Court is modified to the extent that the direction regarding grant of reinstatement on the original post and consequential benefits to the respondentworkman is confirmed, whereas, the direction regarding back wages is quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall pay the wages as compensation for the period from the date of publication of the award till reinstatement within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of writ of this order. With the above modification, the petition stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the above extent with no order as to costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) /phalguni/