Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs Madhubhai Shahubhai Dabhi

K.S. Jhaveri, J.—By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned award dated 05.10.2007 passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference [LCA] No. 240 of 2003.

This, Court on 17.03.2009 had passed the following order;

Rule returnable on 8th April, 2009.

In the meanwhile, the petitioner corporation shall deposit, on or before 31st March, 2009, 50% wages which the Labour Court has directed the corporation to pay to the respondent. The petitioner corporation shall also place on record the statement showing the calculation of retiral dues payable to the respondent. In the meanwhile, the amount payable towards gratuity shall also be deposited in this Court. Other undisputed amount which becomes payable upon termination/retirement of an employee, shall be paid to the respondent before 8th April, 2009.

Pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the petitioner had paid an amount of Rs. 3,79,359/- toward Provident Fund, an amount of Rs. 54,426/- towards gratuity to the respondent workman and had deposited 50% back wages with the Registry of this Court. Thus, the impugned award passed by the Labour Court is substantially complied with. 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 Ahsrey Singh and Another Vs. Ram Bux Singh and Others, 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 Vs. Rudhan Singh, 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.

It would also be relevant to refer to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (A.P.S.R.T.C.) and Others Vs. Abdul Kareem, 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. Looking to the facts of the case and the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the above decisions, I am of the opinion that the respondent workman cannot be said to be entitled for any back wages. Hence, the impugned award grating back wages deserves to be quashed and set aside.

In the result, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned award qua back wages is quashed and set aside. Registry is directed to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner qua 50% back wages pursuant to the order dated 17.03.2009 passed by this Court, by A/c. Payees cheque in the name of petitioner Corporation. Rule is made absolute to the above extent with no order as to costs. It is, however, observed that if any of the amount is not received by the respondent, the respondent will make a representation to the petitioner Corporation within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this order and the same shall be released by the petitioner Corporation within a period of eight weeks thereafter.