STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. SHANKERLAL MANGALDAS THAKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of these petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has inter alia prayed to quash and set aside the judgment and award dated 25th November, 2004 passed by the Labour Court, Jamnagar, in Reference (LCJ) No.2000 1990, whereby the Labour Court partly allowed the Reference and directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent-workman with continuity of service and 25% back wages.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that the respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute on the ground that the petitioner had terminated his services in complete breach of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The dispute was numbered as Reference (LCJ) No.2000 of 1990 and the same were decided by way of the impugned judgments and awards. Being aggrieved by the same, the present petitions have been preferred.

(3.) INSOFAR as granting of back wages is concerned, 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, (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. Thus, relying upon the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court, I am of the opinion that the respondent is not entitled to any back wages and therefore, the award of the Labour Court granting back wages is unjust and improper and the same is required to be quashed and set aside.