Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/2261/2004 4/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2261 of 2004
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4050 of 2004
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
GUJARAT
CYPROMET LTD. – Petitioner(s)
Versus
CHANDRAKANT
C PRAJAPATI – Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
DIPAK R DAVE for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR KR KOSHTI for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date : 02/08/2010
ORAL
COMMON JUDGMENT
1. As
common questions on law and facts are involved in these petitions,
they are disposed of by this common judgment.
2. These
cross petitions are filed by the petitioner Company and the
respondent workman challenging the impugned award dated 30.08.2003
passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference [LCA[ No.
374/2002, whereby the Labour Court has directed the petitioner to
reinstate the respondent workman with continuity of service and 50%
back wages.
3. The
short facts of the case are that the respondent at the relevant time
was working as a Welder in the petitioner Company and he was working
as such for the last three years. The respondent was discharged from
the service on account of alleged misconduct committed by him. Being
aggrieved by the same, the respondent raised a dispute which was
ultimately referred to the Labour Court for adjudication being
Reference [LCA) No. 374 of 2002. Before the Labour Court, both the
parties adduced evidence and after appreciating the material produced
before it, the Labour Court allowed the reference with the aforesaid
directions. Hence, these petitions.
4. Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents
on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner Company states
that the respondent workman had attained the age of superannuation on
19.10.2005. Therefore, the only question which is required to be
considered is with regard to retirement dues and the back wages.
5. Now
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.
6. 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.
7. For
the foregoing reasons, the following order is passed :
(i) Special
Civil Application No. 2261 of 2004 preferred by the petitioner
Company is partly allowed to the extent that the impugned award
grating back wages is quashed and set aside. As the respondent
workman had attained the age of superannuation, the impugned award
qua reinstatement with continuity of service is confirmed and the
petitioner shall pay the retiral benefits to the respondent
accordingly. It is, however made clear that the petitioner Company
shall pay the retiral benefits to the respondent workman within a
period of four months from the date of receipt of writ of this order
and shall pay the same on the basis of the last drawn wages. Rule is
made absolute to the above extent with no order as to costs.
(ii) Special
Civil Application No. 4050 of 2004 preferred by the petitioner
workman is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any,
stands vacated.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.]
/phalguni/
Top