CONSERVATOR OF FOREST Vs. BHAGVANJIBHAI K PARMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the judgement and award dated 30.06.2008 passed by the Labour Court, Jamnagar in Reference ( L.C.J.) No. 9357 of 1991 whereby the reference filed by the respondent came to be allowed by directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with 25% backwages.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that the respondent was working as Watchman with the petitioner on 04.04.1984 and was relieved from the post on 29.02.1988. The respondent did not accept his relieving letter. He approached the Civil Judge ( S.D.), Jamnagar by way of Regular Civil Suit No. 113 of 1988 which was rejected by the Civil Judge, Jamnagar on 22.08.1988. The respondent therefore, raised dispute before the Labour Court, Jamnagar which has culminated into the aforesaid reference. After hearing the parties, the Labour Court, Jamnagar passed the aforesaid award. Hence, this petition.

(3.) SO far as 25% back wages is concerned, the Labour Court has not given any cogent reasons for awarding back wages to the respondentworkman. 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.