1. This petition has been filed against the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Kalol in Reference (LCK) No.233/1995 dated 28.01.2005 whereby, the reference was partly allowed and the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent as a fresh appointment with full back wages for the period from 23.12.1994 to 11.02.1999 and other consequential benefits.
2. The facts in a nutshell are that the respondent herein was serving as a Weaver with the petitioner-Mill on monthly pay of Rs.1,700/-. It is the case of the respondent that in spite of having rendered service for a period of about ten years, the petitioner orally terminated his services on 23.12.1994 when the respondent demanded due wages from the petitioner. Against the said action, the respondent raised a dispute, which culminated into the reference in question. After hearing both the sides, the Labour Court partly allowed the reference, by way of the impugned award. Hence, this petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for both the sides. Before the Labour Court, the petitioner had not produced any evidence, much less any cogent evidence, in support of its case. In fact, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the so-called resignation dated 16.06.1994 submitted by the respondent was concocted and got-up one. The oral evidence led by one of the Partners of the petitioner-firm did not support their own documentary evidence. The oral evidence of the witness of the petitioner-firm also did not support the petitioners case. Thus, before the Court below, the case of the petitioner was found to be non- trustworthy and suspicious. Therefore, the Court below rightly directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent in service.
4. However, so far as direction regarding grant of back wages is concerned, it appears that in the statement of claim filed before the Labour Court, the respondent-workman has not made any averment regarding the claim for back wages. In fact, it was found from the record that the respondent was working some where else during the interregnum period.
In the case of Ram Ashrey Singh v. Ram Bux Singh, (2003) II L.L.J. Pg.176, the Apex Court 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 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, the Apex Court 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. Considering 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 shall not be entitled for any back wages. Hence, the impugned award qua granting back wages to the respondent deserves to be quashed and set aside.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned award is modified to the extent that the direction qua granting reinstatement in service stands confirmed, whereas, the direction qua awarding back wages is quashed and set aside. The impugned award stands modified accordingly. The petition stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the above extent with no order as to costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) PRAVIN