Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs Kalidas Chhaganbhai Nayak

K.S. Jhaveri, J.—By way of this petition, the petitioner Corporation has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned award dated 20.07.2001 passed by the Labour Court, Vadodara in Reference [LCV] No. 184 of 1999, whereby the Labour Court has directed the petitioner Corporation to reinstate the respondent workman in service on his original post with 50% back wages.

The short facts of the case are that the respondent workman at the relevant time was working as Driver with the petitioner Corporation. The allegation against the respondent workman is that he had remained unauthorizedly absent from service from 18.12.1996 to 18.02.1997. After following due procedure, the disciplinary authority vide order dated 28.11.1997 dismissed the respondent workman from service. Being aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the respondent workman raised an industrial dispute by way of Reference [LCV] No. 184 of 1999, which was allowed, by the way of the impugned award. Hence, this petition.

This Court on 29.08.2002 had passed the following order:

Rule.

Ad-interim stay against operation and execution of the direction given by the Labour Court for payment of back wages to the respondent.

It is clarified that there is no ad-interim stay against reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service.

In view of the aforesaid order, now so far as the back wages is concerned, the Labour Court has not given any cogent reasons for awarding back wages to the workman. In view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ram Ahsrey Singh and Another Vs. Ram Bux Singh and Others, 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 Vs. Rudhan Singh, 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 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. 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 petitioner-workman cannot be said to be entitled for any back wages. Hence, the impugned award grating back wages deserves to be quashed and set aside.

Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. The respondent was found guilty of serious irregularities/misconducts on 8 different occasions in the past. Looking to the facts of the case, the Labour Court ought to have imposed some penalty on the respondent workman since the negligence of the respondent workman is clearly established. In my opinion, if the penalty of stoppage of one increment with permanent effect is imposed on the respondent workman, the same would meet with the ends of justice. Orders accordingly. The impugned award qua back wages is set aside and qua reinstatement with continuity in services stands confirmed. The impugned awards stands modified accordingly. The ensuing monetary benefits shall be released within a period of three months from today and the order shall be implemented within a period of four months from the date of receipt of writ of this order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the above extent with no order as to costs.