LAKHANPAL NATIONAL LTD Vs. SARALABEN MATHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned award dated 28.09.2004 passed by the Labour Court, Vadodara in Reference [LCB] No. 349 of 1995, whereby the Labour Court has directed the petitioner reinstate the respondent in service with full back wages and all consequential benefits and continuity of services.

(2.) The short facts of the case are that the respondent was appointed as Process Operator in the petitioner Company w.e.f. 07.01.1981. On account of some personal difficulties, the respondent proceeded on leave from 16.12.2003. Thereafter, from time to time, the leave of the respondent was sanctioned upto 14.02.1994. The respondent vide letter dated 07.02.1994 sought extension of leave, which was rejected by the petitioner vide letter dated 03.03.1994. However, the respondent did not resume the duty w.e.f 16.12.1993. Thereafter the respondent was directed to report for duty w.e.f. 17.06.1994. The respondent vide letter dated 15.06.1994 informed the petitioner that if the company is not able to sanction her leave, then it shall accept the resignation. The petitioner company accepted the resignation tendered by the respondent on 24.06.1994. The respondent vide letter dated 29.06.1994, informed the petitioner that she wants to withdraw the resignation letter dated 15.06.1994. Thereafter, again vide letter dated 19.07.1994, the respondent informed the petitioner Company that she wants to resume the duty from 17.08.1994. The petitioner Company vide letter dated 30.07.1994 informed the respondent that since the resignation of the respondent is already accepted, the same cannot be now cancelled. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent raised a dispute which was ultimately referred to the Labour Court, Vadodara for adjudication being Reference [LCB] No. 349 of 1995. 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.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the respondent is already reinstated. Therefore, the only question which is required to be considered is with regard to back wages. 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 workman. In view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ram Ashrey Singh v. Ram Bux Singh, (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. Similar principle has 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.