1. By way of this petition, the petitionerstate has challenged the judgement and award dated 31.12.2005, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCR) No. 1389 of 1990, by which the Tribunal has partly allowed the reference filed by the respondentworkman and directed the petitionerstate to reinstate the respondentworkman with 30% back wages.
2. The short facts leading to filing of this petition are that the respondentworkman was working as daily wager with petitioner. However, the service of the petitioner was terminated by the petitioner. Against the action of the petitioner the respondent workman filed reference before the Labour Court, Ahmedabad. The Tribunal after hearing both the sides vide judgement and award dated 31.12.2005 partly allowed the said reference and directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondentworkman with 30% back wages. Hence, this petition.
3. I have heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the material on record. So far as the aspect of awarding 40% back wages is concerned, I find that no averment regarding th same has been made by the respondentworkman in his statement of Claim before the Labour Court. In the case of Ram Ashrey Singh v. Ram Bux Singh, (2003) II L.L.J. Pg.176, the Apex Court has 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 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. In the case of A.P. State Road Transport & Ors., v. Abdul Kareem, (2005) 6 S.C.C. pg.36, 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. The Labour Court was not justified in awarding back wages to the respondentworkman.
4. It also appears from the record that respondentworkman has completed 240 days regular service, therefore, this Court is of the view that the Labour Court has rightly reinstated the respondent workman. However, I find that the Labour Court has wrongly granted continuity of service to the respondentworkman. Therefore, the impugned judgement and award is quashed and set aside qua granting continuity of service and 30% back wages.
5. 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.
pawan (K.S.JHAVERI,J.)