Taluka Development Officer vs Premdas K. Chavda and Another

K.S. Jhaveri, J.—By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned award dated 13.09.1999 passed by the Labour Court, Junagadh in Reference [LCJ] No. 6 of 1996, whereby the Labour Court has directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent workman on his original post with continuity of service and full back wages for period form 08.01.1996 to 13.09.1999.

The short facts of the case are that the respondent at the relevant time was working as a daily wager with the petitioner. The services of the respondent came to be terminated w.e.f. 04.04.1994. Against the said action of the petitioner, the respondent had filed a Civil Suit No. 229/1994 before the Court, which was subsequently withdrawn. Thereafter, the respondent raised an industrial dispute which was ultimately referred to the Labour Court for adjudication being Reference [LCJ] No. 6 of 1996. 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.

Pursuant to the order dated 29.03.2000, passed by this Court, the respondent workman has been reinstated in service. Therefore, 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, both 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.

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. The impugned award is modified accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the above extent with no order as to costs.