1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned award dated 02.05.2006 passed by the Labour Court, Nadiad in Reference [LCN] No. 13 of 1997, whereby the Labour Court directed the petitioner to pay 50% back wages from the date of dismissal till the date of superannuation with all retirement benefits and imposed a penalty of stoppage of one increment without future effect.
2. The facts in brief are that e respondent was charge sheeted for disciplinary proceedings on account of unauthorized absenteeism from 09.03.1995 to 16.06.1995. Ultimately, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of dismissal from service, vide order dated 20.02.1996. Against the said order, the respondent raised a dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court, Nadiad for adjudication. The Labour Court, after hearing both the sides, partly allowed the reference by way of the impugned award. Hence, this petition.
3. Though served, none appears on behalf of the respondent. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents on record. The respondent was found guilty of serious irregularity / misconduct on 28 different occasions in the past. Of these defaults, many defaults related to incidents of similar nature. In spite of being found guilty of similar defaults in the past, the respondent did not improve his behaviour and continued to commit such misconduct, which is highly unbecoming of a public servant.
4. So far as direction qua back wages is concerned, the Labour Court has not given any cogent reasons while awarding 25% 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.
4.1. 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.
5. 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.
6. Looking to the facts of the case and the past record of the respondent, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal ought not to have completely set aside the order of punishment, as it would amount to granting premium to a wrongdoer. In my opinion, if the penalty of stoppage of Five Increments with future effect is imposed on the respondent, the same would meet with the ends of justice. Orders accordingly. The impugned award stands modified accordingly. The order to be implemented within a period of six months from today. 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/