Rajpipla Nagarpalika vs Shankarbhai Devabhai Vasava

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:­

(A) Issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ or direction to quash and set aside the aforesaid order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bharuch in Reference Case No. 139 of 1996 dated 11.2.2004.

(B) Quash and set aside the order passed by the learned Chief Presiding Officer, Court No.1, Bharuch, for condonation delay application in Miscellaneous Application No. 29 of 2004.

(C) Call for the record and proceedings and examine the same.

(D) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition the order passed by the Labour Court, Bharuch in Reference Case No.139 of 2004 be stayed, and

(E) xxx”

2. The short facts leading to filing of this petition are that the respondent­workman was working as daily wager with the petitioner­Nagarpalika. However, on 01.10.1995, the respondent­ workman was relieved from the service. Against the action of the petitioner, the respondent­workman raised dispute, which culminated into to Reference case No. 139 of 1996 before the Labour Court, Bharuch. The Labour after considering the evidence on record, exparte allowed the said reference and directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent­workman in service with full back wages. Thereafter, the petitioner­Nagarpalika filed Misc. Application for quashing and setting aside the ex­parte award. However, the Labour Court rejected the said application. Hence, this petition.

4. I have heard learned advocate for the petitioner and perused the material on record. I find that the direction regarding reinstatement of the petitioner passed by the Labour Court is just and proper. So far as the the direction regarding grant of back wages is concerned, no averment regarding the same has been made by the respondent­workman in his Statement of Claim filed before the Labour Court. Even otherwise, 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.

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 Court below was not justified in awarding full back wages to the respondent­workman. Therefore, the impugned judgement and award of the Labour Court is quashed and set aside qua granting full back wages.

7. For the foregoing reasons, the present petition is partly allowed. The judgement and award of the Labour Court stands modified to the above extent. The rest of the award remains unaltered. Rule is made absolute to the above extent. It is clarified that from 1st April 2004, i.e. the date on which the petitioner had received the award of the Labour Court till 19.1.2006 i.e. the date of reinstatement in service, the respondent­workman will be entitled for regular salary. Direct service is permitted.

pawan (K.S.JHAVERI,J.)