Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/5099/2002 4/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5099 of 2002
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 ?
=========================================================
GULAM
MOHAMMAD FAKIR MOHAMMAD GHANCHI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
GUJARAT
STATE ROAD TRASNPORT CORPORATION - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
MUKESH RATHOD & MR GK RATHOD
for Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR
ASHISH M DAGLI for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 04/08/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. By
way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set
aside that part of the impugned judgment and award passed by the
Labour Court, Kalol in Reference (LCK) No.327/1995 dated 29.11.1995,
whereby, he was denied any back wages for the interim period.
2. The
facts in brief are that the petitioner was serving as a Conductor
with the respondent-Corporation and worked as such for a period of
about ten years. However, on the basis of the Medical Certificate
issued to the petitioner, he was declared to be unfit for the post of
Conductor and thereafter, vide order dated 22.05.1995, his services
came to be terminated. Against the said order, the petitioner raised
a dispute, which, ultimately, culminated into a reference before the
Labour Court, Kalol. The Court below, after considering the evidence
on record, partly allowed the reference by directing the respondent
to reinstate the petitioner on any alternative post, like Helper,
with continuity of service but, without any back wages, by way of the
impugned award. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged that
part of the award, whereby, he was not granted any back wages.
3. Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents
on record. It is established from the evidence of the petitioner
himself that he was gainfully employed during the interregnum period
and was earning approximately Rs.1,500/- per month. It has been
admitted by the petitioner himself in his cross-examination that he
had worked for the interregnum period for the survival of his family.
Looking to the evidence on record, I am of opinion that the Court
below was completely justified in not granting any back wages to the
petitioner.
4. It
would be relevant to refer to a decision of the Apex Court in
the case of Ram Ashrey Singh
v. Ram Bux Singh, (2003)
II L.L.J. Pg.176, wherein,
it has been 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.
In another case of A.P. State Road Transport & Ors., v.
Abdul Kareem, (2005) 6 S.C.C. pg.36, the Apex Court has 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.
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
petitioner-workman cannot be said to be entitled for any back wages.
Hence, the Court below was justified in not awarding any back wages
to the petitioner and I do not find any reasons to interfere with the
impugned award.
7. For
the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed. It is, however,
clarified that the petitioner shall be given effect of the impugned
award from the date of publication of the same till the date of
actual reinstatement in service, within a period of six months from
today. It is observed that if the petitioner does not resume the
duties, in spite of the orders of the respondent-Corporation, the
respondent-Corporation shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders
in accordance with law. With the above observation, the petition
stands disposed of. Rule is discharged.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.]
Pravin/*
Top