1. This petition has been filed against the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Rajkot in Reference (LCR) No.1703/1989 dated 01.12.2004 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 continuity of service and 25% back wages.
2. The facts in brief are that the respondent herein was working as a Turner with the petitioner on daily wage of Rs.22/-. It was the case of the respondent- workman that his services were terminated by the petitioner on 09.11.1989 when he raised the demand for minimum wages. Being aggrieved by the said action, 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. It appears from the record that the respondent-workman had continuously worked with the petitioner for the period from 01.04.1984 to 09.11.1989. Before the Labour Court, the petitioner had not disputed the tenure of service of the respondent with it. Moreover, the witness of the petitioner (Exh.32) also did not depose any contrary fact regarding the tenure of service of the respondent with the petitioner. Thus, it was established on record that the respondent had worked for 240 days and more every year during his tenure of service with the petitioner. Considering the said aspect of the case, the Labour Court was justified in recorded the finding that the petitioner had committed breach of the provisions of Section 25F of the I.D. Act while terminating the services of the respondent-workman. In my opinion, the findings 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 with continuity of service.
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 25% 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 with continuity of service is confirmed whereas, the direction regarding grant of 25% back wages 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