Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs Nathubhai Tababhai Makwana

K.S. Jhaveri, J.—These cross-petitions have been filed challenging the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Rajkot in Reference (LCR) No. 180/2002 dated 23.04.2004, whereby, the said reference was partly allowed and the petitioner-Corporation has been directed to reinstate the respondent-workman on his original post with continuity of service and 60% back wages.

S.C.A. No. 4690/2005 has been filed by the Corporation challenging the impugned award granting reinstatement, continuity of service and 60% back wages to the workman, whereas, S.C.A. No. 21504/2005 has been filed by the Workman challenging that part of the impugned award, whereby, he was denied full back wages.

The facts in brief are that the respondent-workman was charge-sheeted for disciplinary proceedings on the ground that he had remained absent from duty unauthorizedly. Ultimately, the competent authority imposed the punishment of dismissal from service, vide order dated 22.07.1998.

Against the said order of dismissal from service, the respondent raised a dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court 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-workman had remained remained absent from duty unauthorizedly during the period from 22.02.1998 to 22.04.1998. In the inquiry proceedings, the said charge levelled against the respondent-workman was proved. However, while substituting the order of dismissal, by exercising powers u/s 11A of the I.D. Act, the Court below has not imposed any penalty. In my opinion, the Court below ought to have imposed some penalty while exercising powers u/s 11A of the I.D. Act. Looking to the facts of the case and the past record of the respondent-workman, I am of view that if a penalty of stoppage of three increments with future effect is imposed on the respondent-workman, 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 60% 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, I am of the opinion that the respondent-workman cannot be said to be entitled for any back wages. Hence, the impugned award granting 60% back wages to the respondent-workman deserves to be quashed and set aside.

For the foregoing reasons, S.C.A. No. 4690/2005 filed by the Corporation 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 60% back wages is quashed and set aside. Further, the respondent-workman is imposed a penalty of stoppage of three increments with future effect. Rule is made absolute to the above extent with no order as to costs.

S.C.A. No. 21504/2005 filed by the Workman is dismissed. Rule is discharged.