1. By way of this petition, the petitionerState has challenged the judgement and award dated 30.05.2007, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rajkot, in Reference (LCR) No.240 of 1995, whereby the Labour court has partly allowed the said reference and directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondentworkman on his original post with 25% back wages.
2. The short facts leading to filing of this petition are that the respondentworkman had raised an industrial dispute on the ground that the petitioner had terminated his services in complete breach of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The dispute was numbered as Reference (LCR) No. 240 of 1995 before the Labour Court, Rajkot. The Labour Court vide impugned judgement and award dated 30.05.2007 partly allowed the said reference and directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondentworkman on his original post with 25% back wags. Being aggrieved by the said award, present petition has been preferred by the petitionerState.
3. I have heard learned advocate for both the parties and perused the material on record. So far as the direction regarding reinstatement of the respondentworkman is concerned, I find that the Labour Court has rightly directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondentworkman since the petitioner had committed breach of the mandatory provisions of the I.D. Act, while terminating the service of the respondentworkman. So far as the direction regarding grant of 25% back wages is concerned, I find that the Labour Court has committed error in granting 25% back wages to the respondent workman since, no specific reason has been given by the Labour Court in awarding 25% back wages to the respondentworkman. 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.
4. 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. 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 Court below was not justified in awarding 25% back wages to the respondentworkman. Therefore, the impugned judgement and award of the Labour Court is required to be quashed and set aside qua granting 25% back wages to the respondentworkman.
5. In view of the above, present petition is partly allowed. The impugned judgement and award is quashed and set aside qua granting 25% back wages to the respondentworkman. The judgement and award of the Labour court is modified to the aforesaid extent. The petitioner is directed to reinstate the respondentworkman within a period of one month from today. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(K.S.JHAVERI,J.)
pawan