1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Nadiad in Reference (LCN) No.48/1998 dated 27.11.2006 whereby, the reference of the respondent was partly allowed and the petitioner has been directed to pay 50% back wages from the date of his dismissal till reinstatement. However, the respondent was imposed imposed a penalty of stoppage of three increments with permanent effect.
2. The facts in brief are that the respondent serving as a Conductor with the petitioner Corporation. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent without prior approval and leave from 19.08.1992 to 15.03.1964. Therefore, the petitioner issued charge sheet for unauthorized leave from 01.04.1993 to 15.03.1994.. After following due procedure, the competent authority of the petitionerCorporation dismissed the respondent from service vide order dated 23.03.1994. Therefore, the respondent raised a dispute, which, ultimately, culminated into a Reference before the Labour Court. 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. The respondent was found guilty of serious irregularities / misconducts on 28 different occasions in the past. He was also found guilty of similar misconduct in the past. Being an employee attached with a public utility sector, the respondent ought to have discharged his duties honestly and diligently. Looking to the facts of the case and past defaults, the penalty imposed by the Labour Court is just and proper.
4. However, so far as the direction regarding grant of back wages is concerned, no reasons are assigned for the same by 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.
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 cannot be said to be entitled for any back wages.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned award is modified to the extent that the direction qua back wages is set aside. Rest of impugned award stands confirmed on the same terms. The ensuing monetary benefits and other benefits if any, shall be released 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/