State of Gujarat vs Raghuvir Vajsur Dhandhal

K.S. Jhaveri, J.—By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned award dated 17.07.2001 passed by the Labour Court, Rajkot in Reference [LCR] No. 160 of 1991, whereby the Labour Court has directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with continuity of service and full back wages.

The short facts of the case are that the respondent at the relevant time was working as part time rojamdar dresser with the petitioner. As regular employees were appointed by the petitioner on the vacant posts, the service of the respondent came to an end. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent raised a dispute, which was ultimately referred to the Labour Court for adjudication being Reference [LCR] No. 160 of 1991. Before the Labour Court both the parties adduced evidence and after appreciating the material produced before it, the Labour Court allowed the reference with the aforesaid directions. Hence, this petition.

Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. It appears that the respondent had continuously worked for the period 01.07.1989 to 09.07.1990. It is, therefore, established that before the service of respondent came to an end, he had worked continuously. The petitioner had failed to establish that the respondent had not worked for more than 240 days in a year. There is also a clear finding, that there is violation of provisions of Section 25(F) of the I.D. Act. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out anything contrary to the said findings of the Labour Court. Therefore, I am of the view that the Labour Court has rightly passed the award of reinstatement with continuity of service.

Now 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 respondent 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. In above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the respondent cannot be said to be entitled for back wages.

In the result, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned award qua back wages is quashed and set aside. The rest of the award is confirmed. It is however, observed that the petitioner shall pay all the monetary dues from the date of award, to the respondent, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of writ of this order. The impugned award is modified accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.