1. This petition is directed against the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Nadiad in Reference (LCA) No. 289/1997 dated 30.05.1997, whereby, the said reference was partly allowed and the petitionerState has been directed to reinstate the respondentworkman with continuity of service along with 70% back wages.
2. The facts in brief are that the respondent was serving as a Watchman as a daily wager under the petitioner. It is the case of the respondent that his services were orally terminated with effect from 21.11.1985. There a disputes was raised which, ultimately, culminated into a Reference before the Labour Court. The Labour Court, after considering the evidence on record partly allowed the reference, by way of impugned award. Hence, this petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents on record. This Court while admitting the petition has stayed the order qua continuity and back wages. Therefore, only the question of continuity and back wages is required to be considered. So far as continuity of service is concerned, it transpires from the record that the respondent has raised the dispute after almost nine years and, therefore, he is not entitled for the benefit of continuity in service. However, the period i.e. his earlier service and the period between, after filing of the reference and reinstatement will be considered as his continuous period of service.
4. However, so far as the direction regarding grant of back wages is concerned, no reasons are assigned by the Labour Court for grant of back wages. 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.
4.1. 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 respondent is not entitled for any back wages.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned award stands modified to the extent that the direction qua back wages is quashed and set aside. So far as the direction qua continuity in service is concerned, the respondent is entitled for the continuity of service for the period of earlier service and the period between after filing of the reference and reinstatement. The petitioner shall grant the benefits for the said period within a period of six months from the date of receipt of writ of this order. Rest of the order stands confirmed. Rule is made absolute to the above extent.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) /phalguni/