1.0 This petition is directed against the judgement and award dated 07.06.2005 passed by the Labour Court, Surendranagar in Reference ( LCS) No. 158 of 1997 wherein the reference came to be partly allowed by directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent in service with continuity of service and 40% backwages.
2.0 The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent was employed in Veterinary dispensary purely on temporary, adhoc and parttime basis in Dispensary by Veterinary Doctor after obtaining permission from time to time bound basis in response to applications from the respondent to the Veterinary Doctors. The respondent raised dispute before the Labour Court for the benefit of reinstatement in service with continuity and full backwages on the ground that he was wrongly terminated by the authority without following due procedure of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. After hearing the parties, the Labour Court, Surendranagar allowed the Reference (LCS) No. 158 of 1997 on 07.06.2005 and passed the award as stated hereinabove.
3.0 Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the respondent had never worked continuously between 1991 and 1994 and has provided the work as per administrative requirement. The respondent had never applied for work after July 1994 and thereafter all of a sudden approached the Labour Court after more than 3 years praying for the benefit of reinstatement in service with continuity of service and full backwages. He therefore submitted that the award is unjust and requires to be quashed.
4.0 Learned advocate for the respondent supported the judgement and award of the Labour Court and submitted that the petition may be dismissed.
5.0 As a result of hearing and perusal of the record it is found that the respondent was working as part time Dresser and he was also issued appointment order. In his deposition the respondent stated that he worked as part time Dresser continuously for four and half years. It is also found that other persons were working at the same place where the respondent was working and he was removed from the services. It is required to be noted that the petitioner has not produced any evidence to show that the respondent had worked for particular days in a year. It is also recorded that while removing the respondent workman from service the petitioner had not given any notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation. There is also clear finding that there is violation of provisions of Sections 25(F),25 (G) and 25 (H) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned advocate for the petitioner is unable to point out anything contrary to the said findings of the Labour Court. Therefore, I am of the view that the Labour Court has rightly passed the award qua reinstatement.
6.0 So far as 40% back wages is concerned, the Labour Court has not given any cogent reasons for awarding back wages to the respondentworkman. In view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ram Ashrey Singh v. Ram Bux Singh reported in (2003) II L.L.J. 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 reported in J.T. 2005(6) SC 137 [2005(5) SCC 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.
7.0 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 reported in (2005) 6 SCC 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. In above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the respondent cannot be said to be entitled for back wages.
8.0 In the result, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned award qua back wages is quashed and set aside. The award qua reinstatement and continuity of service is confirmed. The award of the Labour Court is modified accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru*