1. This petition has been filed against the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Mehsana in Reference (LCM) No.124/2008 & 125/2008 dated 20.10.2011 whereby, the reference of the respondent- workman was partly allowed and the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent-workman on his original post with lump-sum back wages of Rs.5,000/- and cost of Rs.500/-.
2. The facts in brief are that the respondent-workman was working as a Watchman with the petitioner since 23.07.1992 on monthly salary of Rs.900/-. It was the case of the respondent-workman that his services were terminated by the petitioner on 18.06.1998 when he raised a demand for minimum wages. Being aggrieved by the same, he raised a dispute, which culminated into a reference before the Labour Court. After hearing both the sides, the Labour Court partly allowed the reference by way of the impugned award. Hence, this petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for both the sides. In pursuance of the order dated 16.08.2012 of this Court, the respondent-workman was reinstated in service. The Labour Court has recorded a finding that the petitioner had not followed the provisions of Section 25F of the I.D. Act before terminating the services of the respondent-workman. In my opinion, the finding arrived at by the Labour Court is in consonance with the evidence on record and I concur with the same. Thus, the Tribunal was completely justified in ordering reinstatement of the respondent-workman.
4. However, so far as the direction regarding grant of back wages is concerned, I find that no averment regarding the same has been made by the respondent- workman in his Statement of Claim filed 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. 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-workman cannot be said to be entitled for any back wages. Hence, the Court below was not justified in awarding back wages to the respondent- workman. Hence, the impugned award qua granting Rs.5000/- as back wages deserves to be quashed and set aside.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned award is modified to the extent that the direction regarding reinstatement to the original post is confirmed whereas, the direction regarding grant of lump-sum back wages and cost is quashed and set aside. The impugned award stands modified accordingly. The petition stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the above extent with no order as to costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) Pravin/*