DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER Vs. CHATURBHAI JAGABHAI MAYAVANSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though served none appears on behalf of the respondent. 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned award dated 21.01.1999 passed by the Labour Court Vadodara in Reference No. 446/1996.

(2.) This Court on 281.01.2000 had passed the following order :- Rule returnable on 14.02.2000. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the respondent workman has been reinstated subject to the result of the petition. Ad-interim relief in respect of payment of back wages. D.S. Permitted.

(3.) In view of the aforesaid order, the award qua reinstatement is confirmed. 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 respondent workman. 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. 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 reported in J.T. 2005(6) SC 137 [2005(5) SCC 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. It would also be relevant to refer to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of A.P. State Road Transport & Ors. v. Abdul Kareem reported in (2005) 6 SCC 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. In above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the respondent cannot be said to be entitled for back wages.