AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. K.S. Jhaveri, J.—By way of this petition the petitioner establishment has prayed to quash and set aside the judgment and
award of the Labour Court, Vadodara, Dated : 27.01.2003, rendered in Reference (L.C.V.) No. 898 of 1996, whereby the Labour Court partly
allowed the said reference. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the respondent workman, herein, joined the services
as ''Machine Operator'' with the petitioner establishment on 06.01.1991. However, his services were came to be terminated vide order dated
19.06.1996. Being aggrieved thereby, the respondent workman raised an industrial dispute by filing the reference, as stated above, in which the
Labour Court passed the impugned judgment and award. Hence, the present petition.
Heard, learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. A perusal of the material on record reveals that the case of the
respondent before the Labour Court was that he was working with the petitioner from 06.01.1991 as a machine operator and his services were
came to be terminated vide order dated 07.06.1996, when the respondent take up the issue of giving more rise in salary to the workmen junior to
him, whereas, as per the case of the petitioner, the respondent was, though, granted rise in salary, he indulged in certain activities, which were
prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner, and hence, the services of the respondent were came to be terminated. The petitioner examined himself
on oath, supporting his statement of claims, that his junior one Jitendrabhai was given more rise in salary than him and the said aspect is also
admitted by the witness of the petitioner. Moreover, the witness of the petitioner did not state as to how much rise was given in salary to the junior
of the respondent. The Tribunal, hence, rightly held that the petitioner failed to controvert the case put forward by the respondent.
Insofar as the aspect of indulgence in prejudicial activities by the respondent is concerned, it is an admitted position that the petitioner had
neither issued any notice nor had proved the charges levelled against the respondent by conducting any departmental inquiry. In other words, the
petitioner did not led any evidence to prove the allegations made against the respondent. Thus, it is evident that the respondent was given no
opportunity to present his case and that, admittedly, the principles of natural justice were not followed by the petitioner. It is a settled position of
law that an order of dismissal can be passed against a workman by an employer only as a last resort. In the case on hand, admittedly, the petitioner
did not follow any of the provisions of law before passing the impugned order. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the Tribunal rightly come to the
conclusion that the respondent was dismissed from service by keeping grudge against him and the Tribunal has rightly granted reinstatement to the
respondent.
As regards the aspect of backwages is concerned, here, it would be relevant to refer to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Ahsrey
Singh and Another Vs. Ram Bux Singh and Others, , wherein the Apex Court has held that 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, view has been taken
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.
In the case on hand, the Labour Court has, admittedly, assigned no reason, much less any cogent or convincing reason, for granting 70 per cent
backwages to the respondent. Hence, the order of the Labour Court to the extent granting back wages requires to be set aside. In the result, this
petition is PARTLY ALLOWED. The judgment and award of the Labour Court, Vadodara, Dated : 27.01.2003, rendered in Reference (L.C.V.)
No. 898 of 1996, is CONFIRMED to the EXTENT it grants reinstatement with continuity of service to the respondent, whereas, it stands
QUASHED and set aside to the EXTENT it grants 70 per cent backwages to him. The impugned judgment and award dated 27.01.2003 stands
MODIFIED in the above terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.