1. This petition is directed against the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Nadiadn Reference (LCN) No. 56/1993 dated 22.11.2006, whereby, the said reference was partly allowed and the petitionerCorporation has been directed to pay 40% back wages to the respondent workman from the date of dismissal to the ate of retirement. The respondent workman was also imposed a penalty of stoppage of one increment with permanent effect.
2. The facts in brief are that the respondent was working as a Conductor with the petitionerCorporation. On 22.05.1991 the bus was checked by the checking squad of the petitionerCorporation and it was allegedly found that the respondent had committed certain irregularities in the issuance of tickets. In connection with the said incident, departmental inquiry was initiated and ultimately, vide order dated 19.02.1992, the respondentworkman was dismissed from service.
3. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondentworkman 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 as aforesaid.
4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. The respondent was found guilty of serious irregularities / misconducts on 45 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 the past record of the respondentworkman, and since the workman has retired from the service pending the Reference the penalty imposed upon him appears to be just and proper.
5. However, so far as the direction regarding grant of back wages is concerned, no reasons are assigned 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.
5.1. 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. Hence, the Court below was justified in not awarding any back wages to the respondent workman.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned award passed by the Labour Court is modified to the extent that the direction back wages is set aside. Rest of the impugned award stands confirmed. The ensuing monetary benefits shall be released within a period of six months from today. Rule is made absolute to the above extent.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) /phalguni/