Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs Nashakhana Harijan

K.S. Jhaveri, J.—By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned award dated 30.12.2008, passed by the Labour Court, Kutch (Bhuj) In Reference [LCB] No. 3 of 2001, whereby the Labour Court has directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent on his original post with 50% back wages from 26.04.1994 till the date of reinstatement on his original post with all the consequential benefits.

The short facts of the case are that on 06.02.1993, while the respondent was discharging his duties as Driver of a Bus belonging to the petitioner Corporation, an accident took place, in which several passengers sustained injuries. After following due procedure, the disciplinary authority of the petitioner dismissed the respondent from service w.e.f. 26.04.1994. The first appeal preferred by the respondent against the order of dismissal came to be rejected vide order dated 18.10.1994. Against the said order, the respondent raised a dispute by way of Reference [LCB] No. 3 of 2001, which was allowed, by way of impugned award. Hence, this petition.

Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. As the respondent is already reinstated in service, the only question which is required to be considered is with regard to back wages only. So far as the question of 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 respondent 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.

The Labour Court, while exercising powers u/s 11A of the I.D. Act, has not imposed any penalty. From the record, it appears that the respondent had committed 8 defaults in the past. Looking to the facts of the case and the past record of the respondent, in my opinion, if the respondent is imposed the penalty of stoppage of one increment with future effect, the same would meet with the ends of justice. Orders accordingly. The effect of the order shall be given within a period of four months from today.

The petition is partly allowed. The impugned award qua back wages is quashed and set aside and direction qua reinstatement is confirmed. The impugned award is modified accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the above extent with no order as to costs. The ensuring monetary benefit will be given from the date of the award within a period of six months.