Divisional Controller vs Badaji Virji Katara

K.S. Jhaveri, J.—By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Himmatnagar in Reference (LCH) No. 109/1998 dated 01.04.2004, whereby, the order of dismissal passed by the petitioner-Corporation was set aside and the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent on his original post with continuity of service and 30% back wages.

The facts in brief are that the respondent was charge-sheeted for disciplinary proceedings in relation to an incident that had occurred on 26.04.1995 where the respondent was found to be in a drunken position during his duty hours. Ultimately, the competent authority imposed the punishment of dismissal from service, vide order dated 10.11.1995.

Against the said order of punishment, the respondent raised a dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court, Himmatnagar for adjudication. The Labour Court, after hearing both the sides, partly allowed the reference, by way of the impugned award. Hence, this petition.

Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. The respondent was found guilty of serious irregularity/misconduct on twenty four (24) different occasions in the past. Of these twenty four defaults, many defaults were of a serious nature. Even earlier, the respondent had been dismissed from service. Looking to the facts of the case and the past record of the respondent, I am of the opinion that the Court below ought to have imposed some penalty while setting aside the order of dismissal. In my opinion, if the penalty of stoppage of four increments with future effect is imposed on the respondent, the same would meet with the ends of justice.

So far as the question regarding back wages is concerned, the Court below has not given any cogent reasons while awarding 30% back wages to the respondent-workman. In the case of Ram Ahsrey Singh and Another Vs. Ram Bux Singh and Others, 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.

In another decision, in the case of General Manager, Haryana Roadways Vs. Rudhan Singh, the Apex Court has 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 Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (A.P.S.R.T.C.) and Others Vs. Abdul Kareem, 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.

5.2 Looking to the facts of the case and the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the above decisions, the respondent-workman cannot be said to be entitled for any back wages. Hence, the impugned award granting 30% back wages to the respondent-workman deserves to be quashed and set aside.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned award of the Labour Court is modified to the extent that the direction regarding reinstatement on the original post with continuity of service is confirmed and the direction regarding grant of 30% back wages is quashed and set aside. Further, the respondent-workman is imposed a penalty of stoppage of Four Increments with future effect. The effect of this order shall be given from the date of the award till the actual reinstatement and the same shall be given within a period of six months from today.

With the above observations and directions, the petition stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the above extent with no order as to costs.