SCA/58019/1994 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 580 of 1994 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT ================================================= 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 constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ================================================= GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION - Petitioner Versus M.M.KAZI - Respondent ================================================= Appearance : MR YOGESH S LAKHANI WITH MR. DAGHLI & NIRAV SANGHVI for Petitioner MR MANOJ SHRIMALI for Respondent: ================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT Date : 13/11/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (GSRTC) through its General Manager has assailed the award dated 20/3/1993 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Surat in Reference (LCS) No. 182/1989 where under the Labour Court partly allowed the reference and ordered payment of 50 % back wages with SCA/58019/1994 2/4 JUDGMENT reinstatement in service and with consequential benefits. 2. Facts in brief deserve to be set out as under. The respondent who was working as conductor received charge sheet with regard to his misbehaviour with the checking party on duty and ultimately same resulted into his dismissal after holding inquiry. The workman raised industrial dispute which came to be referred to the competent Labour Court where it got registered Reference (LCS) No. 182 of 1989. The Labour Court after elaborate discussions of material on record came to the conclusion that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the charge levelled against the employee respondent and ordered reinstatement with continuity of service and 50 % back wages. Non-granting of 50% back wages was by way of substituting penalty of dismissal. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. It deserves to be noted at this stage that the respondent workman also preferred petition being Special Civil Application No. 2115 of 1994 challenging non-granting of 100 % back wages which came to be disposed of by this Court (Coram: K.S. Jhaveri, J) vide order dated 2/8/2005. 4. It is required to be noted at this stage that though in this matter initially while admitting the mater this Court (Coram: S.M. Soni, J (as he then was) granted Rule and SCA/58019/1994 3/4 JUDGMENT ad-interim relief in terms of Para-11 (C) where under the impugned award was stayed. The Corporation reinstated the workman and therefore the workman on his reinstatement served the Corporation and retired on attaining the age of superannuation. Therefore, now this matter could be said to be confined only with regard to the order of granting 50 % back wages. This Court as it is stated herein above in Special Civil Application No. 2115 of 1994 has observed as under : “3.0 I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents placed on record. The Labour Court has given a benefit of doubt in favour of the petitioner workman while passing the impugned award. Looking to the reasonings given by the Labour Court, I am satisfied that the Labour Court has not committed any error in passing the award in question. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by the Labour Court and find no reason to interfere in this petition. 3.1 Moreover, in view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ram Ashrey Singh v. Ram Bux Singh reported in (2003) II L.L.J., pg. 176, 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. 3.2 In the case of General Manager, Haryana Roadways v. Rudhan Singh reported in J.T. 2005(6) S.C., pg. 137, 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. SCA/58019/1994 4/4 JUDGMENT Hence, I am of the opinion that the Labor Court was justified in granting only 50 % back wages to the petitioner. “ 5. In view of this, and in view of the fact that learned counsel for the respondent workman has under the instruction of his client submitted that the quantum of back wages may be reduced from 50 % to 25 %. In view of this concession, this Court is of the considered view that no further elaborate discussion is required on merits. Suffice it to say that the award stands modified only to the extent it grants 50 % back wages, now as per the modified award the workman would be entitled to receive only 25 % of the back wages. With this modification the petition is disposed of. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent only. However no order as to costs. [ S.R. BRAHMBHYATT, J ] /vgn