= ' §$£i1RH: BfLé§SPUR M Wf%€ Fetiiion {S} Ne. £3 e‘f 29$? Kishsh‘ Lai, Sit). Sm Aga § aged about? 5? years: GJ‘, Remix Ex—Waerman, wesewiiy empbyee MRSRTS. of C§,..C Depot — Paoi $ha$ir§ Rigfam, Chow §§a§pun Raipur; CS3 G aio. ‘iiéargdha, ! } timo m Csfgorisn, Chhafi§sgarh ihmug?? infrasimsre g evemgamem 33mctgr, Ehasiré Chowk, Ras‘ur CG}. ai Meragn m D p { {Wyi‘i 'Petiiien mna‘er Rmcx‘e 22? ofCGnstmtion e mdia} f $ 9m. Saiis§1 . Agmiymiri, J. .‘ K Min Fraaw $axena, cwmgi fay T ragondegii. $3: Hmw . S. Deepaix . Panceyg caLmse§ for irhe "“ pe Presen; M é w"‘” t: g@ i§3§¢ aS$ad em 1 {BRiaL 6R3 i‘ 'a’m gay f February, 20%; wg d 20 ndusiai m Ci“.ha1‘t§sgarh,.wreb :%:e 8y ih§$ gemian, me pei§i§cner imns the order aied 23-§-$8 tr 3m hey {.émrxexme Pi?) passed by the State .9 agapeaé f§§ed by i§1e peiéiioner fa? gran: e‘f back-wages on reinstatemem was $‘e£ie§ 3 51' mim- the crcier ased b‘r y he Labwr Cami -%‘,e brief facis, in nmsheii, are i‘nai; ihe paii‘i‘ionei Waieman on im’ gae The degarimentai enquiry was miimea‘ a? remaining meeuiihmized eesent. Fursuani he the enquiry; we mices by order dated $-§-2&Q2 {Ai’i The geiitioner fiied a peiéiien before ihe Lebeu? Ceur’t. .at m wager eppm‘tume; was affem‘ed is ihe was woiking as a mama: mst in Madhya Pmdesh Siam Raad Transpmt Carporatien (for shm‘i, ”MPSR?C”}. agaifzsi' him ea peiitiener was d§smissed from se nexure PIS}. The Labour Scar; se‘i: asm‘e the d§sm§ssa§ en the gremd Eh peii€§0ner, however, deca‘ined is grem baeiaxaiages by emei' daiet‘. 4—é-2$0€ {Amexure W8). Being aggn’e‘v’ed, ihe ewitmwey geek- Y > . I f / wee er} appeai'hefore the %§3GH SGURT §§ €§§Hs§?? r; a N : t .B av k. C fe Vargas ancient ’ ig he é 9 1.. A \:' ? r e t inciustriai 801m. Chhamsgarh. The appeiiate Ccurt iJy the immigned wder dismissed the appeai and afHg'med the ofder eassed by the Labeu? Ceuf‘c m respec’i of fei‘usai of back-wages. 3) Learned counse! appearing fer ihe peiiiiener submits ‘z‘nai ihis is we}? eei'tied principies of iaw thai if the reinstatement is ordefed, ihe coeseaueme wou§d foiiow i.e., grant of mi! back—wages. 4} i have heaivd ieamed ecueseE appearin far the petétianef, pefused ihe g eieadings and ciocumemis apeeneed theretc. 5} The Labour Court came is the canciuebn the? MPSRTC was diseaivee" way back. 0e ereafmn of ihe State of Chhairt§sgasén i‘ne reswendent was creaiec? is {ehabiiiiaée {he empievees of MPSRTC who were werkina within the te¥r§t0r%ei jur§sc§isii0n of Chha‘iiisgam. Sinee the respendee? was mt in a pesitéon ie gran? back—wages ‘ao any empmyee as ihey wei'e mi iransfeHed in eewice, but ihey were fehabiiiiated er reinetated by the responden’i on the ground thai MPSRTC was eissoWed amd eew Siate i.e., S€ete cf (Shhatt‘iegar’n was cfeaied. Leamed mdestria} Com? exammed an eie‘aspeo‘is 0'? the meme? and came to the concmsion that ihe petiiéener §aiied to moviuce eray documeni to esiab§§eh thei he was not gaiafmiy empaoyerj eisewhere. even it was n0? in Orai submisskm of the petiiionef asto whether he was emeioved 0f no. AocordEngEy, é‘ne §aboaf Com‘t recorded thai ii’ is not found proved that the petirioner was not gainfuriy emeioyed. Thus, in View of the factuai back around. :he eetrtioner is no? entereci to back-waees. 6} ir‘: the matter of Aiiai’rabad 3a} Saee'therr Vs. Eerie $henker Re§ arm eeeiher relied on LA; the periiéoner, the Seer-me dour? obeervwd a3 weer: ‘518. We have referred io Gerraih deeieiohe or rhis Coert ’Eo high§igh% the? eariier in rhe event of ah order of dismbeai beéng set aside, reinstatement with fuii back- wages was the useai reeuir. Bur now wiih the passage of iime, i‘: has come to be reeiized ihet indueiry ie beih comeeiied to oey ihe workman fer a period during which he aoea'rehiiy oonirilou‘ieci ii'riiie or moihing at ail, my i§er a periord tha: was SfQent unpmducmeiy, Whiie €he- warkman is being compei¥ed to g9 back to a $ituat§on wh§ch prevaiied many years age when he was §i<m§ssed it is neCmwn; for us m deveEep a piagmaiic ammagh ée prebiemS d6gg§n§ indusiria} reiat'aons. However, m just sa§ution can bé effered bui: ihe go§den mean may be arrEved at.” Howeven m the facis of that case, 58% back‘wages was gz'antezi 7) The) Hon‘bie Suweme Cour: in the matter of §V§si Hina‘msm‘a W's Wmks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Emgaioyees 9f M55. Himwian Tia“! Werk$ Pvt. Ltd? sbserved as amda: .u. . . ~~v~n¢ \; ”’l 1. in ihe very naiua'e of théngs {new came: ha a strait- asket fermuia far awaiding mééef of back wages. AS eaevam cens§derai§ons wii§ enier 2319 verdmi. More er 1e33, w wcmd be a moiioz’a acidressed to tee d%scret§on of iihe Tr§buna§. Fai! beck wagee v- euid be the acme? wie and 'ihe party ebieciéng *e ét mus% esiebiish the cérsumstenees eesessi€a€ing eepariure, At the? sage *ihe Hibunai aw? exemiee its ciieueiwn keeging m wew ei§ the ¥eievant cimumeiancee. Eu? me dissreiion mus? be exercised in a jadic§a} ami §udic§ous manna“. The ¥eeeen fer exem‘séng d€scre§en mesi be cagem arad cem§nc§ng and mus? appear on i: e $‘aci 9f ihe recere. Whem $1 is sa§d feat semeihing is to be done Within ihe ciiscreiion of the auth0r§iy, thaé somethéng is ie be defuse aceerding is the mks o? reason aad jue‘éce, acccrding i0 law aed no? humom. it i3 not to be afbitrary, vague and fancifw but {egai and reguiar (see Seseimeb Sierp v. ify’akefieidf‘. 5 i V a x 1 u) The Hen’b§e Supreme Court in ihe wetter of 9G}, 9f §x§ed§ca§ J’ » r s Ea‘use‘tien & Eeseereh, Chenfiigerh V. g3; Kume has ebsewed a mder. “a The Labom Ccurt being ihe féne§ cemi af facis came to a medusien that payment e? 60% wages womd appw’ ; with ihe requiremem of §aw. The aeding cf perversiiy er being erroneous er no? in accerdenee with iaw shaii have is be {ecorrjed Mth reasees m order i0 assaii i‘ne fmamg of the Tribune} 6:" ihe Labeur Couri. it is not §0f the High Semi to go inte me facteai eseecie of ihe matte! and $§3ere is an exisiing i §§:atio,n on time Hégéi Cow? io fha‘: effect. in the event, however the finding ef fact is based er.- any meagezeciattom of eviiteme, that weuid be deemed te be an ettor o? iaw which can be correctea by a writ 0f eertbrefi. The taw §s wet; settied te the effect that fimdmg of tee Labour Court cannet be chatiengea‘ in a preceedieg in e wr§t o? eeftéorari en the gteund the eieaant and ma evtdeme adduced befote the r Q i -bv Labeur Court was insa§f§ciem 0r madequate iheugh hawgvei, pewersity sf *he ardef wouid wawant inierventmn of ihe High Ceurf. The obsewaticn,>as abeve, siands we” sewed since the decision of this Court in Syed Yaiwm‘a v. KS. Racihakfishnan. 12. Payment cf back wages having a discretionary aiement involved in it has; i0 be deal: with in the faa€$ arid circums‘iances oi each case am‘i no sii'ait-j'ackei formuia can be evoived, thnugh, howevei, there is statutory sanction i0 direci payment of back wages in its entirety.“ é) The said raiic is fGiiowed and uaheid by ihe Han’bie Suareme Cour: in iiie matter of indian Raiiway Construciisn Co. Ltd Vs. May Kamar? A Divisieh Bench of this High Ccur‘i in the matte! of RS. Dwivedi v. iv‘iP‘ $tate Co- operative ii’iai’keting Federasiea Liti, Bhapai and others, decided 0n 19‘“ ' August, 2005, appiying i0 ihe dicta as iaid dawn by ihe Honibie Supieme Court in the cases mentioneci hereinabove. has come te the conciusioa ihat pavmeht ef bask wages being eureiy a discretionary eiement has to be deait with regard to the facts anti circumstances oi each case. Even though there is no statutory sanction io direct payment oi back wages in its entirety. 1&3) Having regard to the facts situation oi the case. whetein the reseonoient is not the originai empioyer, even on transfer he was not iransietred to Chhattisgath, a new agency was created to grant rehabiii’ration to aii tine ‘emoiovees oi‘ MPSRTC who ieii Within iurisdiction of the State of Chhattisgath. The resooncient Corporation is rehahiiitating the empiovees in various other departments as there is no State Roaa‘ Transport Corporation in the State of Chhattisgarh. Thus, the order impugned is inst and proper and warranting no interterence. 11‘) in View of the foregoing. the petition is aocotciingiy ciismisseoi in iimine. re Sci/- i Satish K. Agnihotrii Judge ) ‘