Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/6088/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6088 of 2010
=========================================================
GUJARAT
STATE ROAD TRASNPORT CORPORATION - Petitioner(s)
Versus
RAMANLAL
RAMDAYAL JAYSWAL - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
HARDIK C RAWAL for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR DM DEVNANI for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 13/07/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Rule.
Mr. D.M. Devnani, learned counsel, waives service on behalf of the
respondent. With the consent of the parties, the matter is finally
heard today.
1. By
way of this petition, the petitioner-G.S.R.T.C. has prayed to quash
and set aside the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court,
Kachchh at Bhuj in Reference (LCB) No.69/2003 dated 18.11.2009,
whereby, the reference of the respondent-employee was allowed and the
petitioner-Corporation has been directed to treat the respondent as
continuous in service with effect from the date of his dismissal up
to the date of his retirement, i.e. 30.04.2003 and to pay all
retirement benefits for the said period along with full back wages.
It was also clarified in the award that the respondent shall not be
entitled for reinstatement on his original post beyond the date of
his superannuation retirement.
2. The
facts in brief are that the respondent was serving as a Conductor
with the petitioner-Corporation and had rendered continuous service
of more than 20 years at the relevant time. On 04.04.1994 while the
respondent was on duty on the Bhachau Adhoi route, it was noticed
that two bundles of luggage belonging to a private enterprise were
lying in the bus for which no tickets were issued. In connection with
the said irregularity, departmental inquiry was held and ultimately,
vide order dated 29.06.1994, the respondent was dismissed from
service.
3. Being
aggrieved by the said order, the respondent raised a dispute, which,
ultimately, culminated into a reference before the Court below. The
Labour Court, after considering the evidence on record, partly
allowed the said Reference, by passing the impugned award. Hence,
this petition.
4. Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents
on record. Before the Court below, it appears that the
petitioner-Corporation was not able to prove the charge levelled
against the respondent and consequently, the conclusion arrived at by
the Inquiry Officer of the petitioner-Corporation was held to be
perverse. I have gone through the records of the case and
particularly, the impugned award passed by the Labour Court. In my
opinion, the Court below has not committed any illegality or
impropriety while setting aside the order of dismissal passed by the
petitioner-Corporation. Hence, the Court below was justified in
granting benefits under Section 11/A of the I.D. Act to the
respondent.
5.
So far as the issue of grant of full back wages is concerned, I find
that the Court below has not given any cogent & convincing reason
while awarding full back wages.
5.1 In
the case of Ram Ashrey Singh v. Ram Bux Singh, (2003)
II L.L.J. Pg.176,
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 principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the
case of General Manager, Haryana Roadways v. Rudhan Singh,
J.T. 2005 (6) S.C.,pg. 137, [2005 /(5) S.C.C.,pg.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.
5.2
It would also be relevant to refer to another decision of the Apex
Court in the case of A.P. State Road Transport & Ors., v.
Abdul Kareem, (2005) 6 S.C.C. pg.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
the forum granting reinstatement.
6. 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,
particularly, when the petitioner is a public body. Hence, the
impugned award grating full back wages to the respondents deserves to
be quashed and set aside.
7. For
the foregoing reasons, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned
award of the Labour Court directing the petitioner-Corporation to
treat the respondent-employee as continuous in service w.e.f.
29.06.1994 up to the date of his retirement, i.e. 30.04.2003, and to
pay all retirement benefits for the said period stands confirmed. The
direction regarding grant of full back wages is quashed and set
aside. All the retirement dues of the respondent-employee shall be
paid within a period of SIX WEEKS from the date of receipt of writ of
this order. With the above direction, the petition stands disposed
of. Rule is made absolute to the above extent with no order as to
costs.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.]
Pravin/*
Top
