Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA/470/2010 4/ 4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 470 of 2010 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE [ENTITY] 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the [ACT] or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? [ENTITY] - Petitioner(s) Versus [ENTITY] - Respondent(s) Appearance : MR [ENTITY] for Petitioner(s) : 1, RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1, MR. [ENTITY] for Respondent(s) : 1, CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE [ENTITY] Date : 26/07/2010 ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Palanpur in [CASE NUMBER] dated 06.10.2009, whereby, the said reference was allowed and the petitioner-Board has been directed to reinstate the respondent on her original post with 30% back wages.
2. The facts in brief are that the respondent was working as an Attendant cum Sweeper with the petitioner since 01.09.1985. However, her services came to be orally terminated on 01.06.2002. Being aggrieved by the said action, the respondent raised a dispute, which, ultimately, culminated into a reference before the Court below. The Labour Court, after considering the evidence on record, partly allowed the reference, by passing the impugned award. Hence, this petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. It transpires from the record that the respondent had rendered continuous service of seventeen years with the petitioner-Board until her services came to be terminated and that in every year, she had completed more than 240 days of work. However, while terminating her services, the petitioner-Board had not following the requisite procedure, as required under the provisions of the [ACT]. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the Court below found the impugned action of the petitioner to be violative of the provisions of [SECTION] of the [ACT].
4. Looking to the facts of the case and the evidence on record, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned award passed by the Court below qua the relief regarding reinstatement in service is concerned.
5. However, so far as the question regarding grant of 30% back wages is concerned, the Court below has not given any cogent reasons while awarding back wages. In the case of [PRECEDENT], 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. Similar principle has also been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of General Manager, Haryana Roadways v. Rudhan Singh, J.T. 2005 (6) S.C.,pg. 137, [2005 /(5) S.C.C.,pg.591], 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.
5.1 It would also be relevant to refer to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of [PRECEDENT] pg.36, 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.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned award of the Labour Court directing reinstatement on the original post is confirmed, subject to the condition that the respondent-workman has not reached the age of superannuation. The direction regarding grant of 30% back wages is quashed and set aside. The impugned award of the Labour Court stands modified accordingly. The petition stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the above extent with no order as to costs.
[K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*