R.K. Technical Institute (Teb) vs Khodabhai Parshottamdas Bhoi

K.S. Jhaveri, J.—The present petition is filed challenging the award dated 27.12.2002 passed by the Labour Court, Anand in Reference (LCA) No. 363 of 1986 (New Reference (LCA) No. 531/97) whereby the labour court partly allowing the reference directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent workman with 50% backwages. It is the case of the petitioner that an industrial dispute was raised by the workman for adjudicating the issue as to whether the workman is required to be reinstated at his original post with full backwages. It is the case of the petitioner that the workman was working with the petitioner as hamal on ad hoc basis and his services were put to an end when the work was over. Thereafter he was given fresh appointment in the year 1984 and the said service came to an end in 1985. The Labour Court after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award. Being aggrieved by the same, the present petition is preferred.

Mr. D.G. Chauhan, learned advocate appearing for petitioner submitted that in spite of the fact that the respondent workman was appointed on ad hoc basis, the Labour Court granted reinstatement which is contrary to the settled position of law. He submitted that the respondent workman has been reinstated in service pursuant to the interim order dated 13.12.2004 passed by this Court.

Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appearing for the respondent-workman supported the impugned award and submitted that the same does not call for any interference by this Court.

This Court on 13.12.2004 granted stay against the payment of backwages but did not stay the award qua reinstatement. It is submitted before this Court today that the respondent-workman has been reinstated.

Having heard learned advocates for the parties and having perused the papers on record, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned award qua reinstatement on his original post. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings adopted and findings arrived at by the Labour Court qua reinstatement and therefore in my opinion the award qua reinstatement with continuity of service is not required to be interfered with.

In that view of the matter, the only question which is required to be considered by this Court is qua backwages. From the award it appears that the Labour Court has granted backwages without giving any cogent and valid reasons except in the operative order. In fact the Labour Court itself observed in the impugned award that the respondent workman had a source of income in the interregnum period.

Moreover, the law on the subject is well settled. In the case of Ram Ahsrey Singh and Another Vs. Ram Bux Singh and Others, , it is held that the workman had no automatic entitlement to back wages since it is discretionary and has to be dealt with in accordance with facts and circumstances of each case. In the case of General Manager, Haryana Roadways Vs. Rudhan Singh, , after referring to various decisions on the said subject, the Apex Court held that order for payment of back wages should not be passed in mechanical manner, but a host of factors are to be taken into consideration before passing any such order. In the premises aforesaid, this petition is partly allowed. The award granting backwages is quashed and set aside. The award of reinstatement with continuity of service is confirmed. The award of the Labour Court is modified to the above extent. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.