Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/1342/2002 4/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1342 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 ?
=========================================================
WANKANER
MUNICIPALITY - Petitioner(s)
Versus
NATHALAL
AMARSHI & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
MEHUL S SHAH for
Petitioner(s) : 1,MR SURESH M SHAH for Petitioner(s) : 1,
RULE
SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 05/08/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. By
way of this petition, the petitioner-Municipality has prayed to quash
and set aside the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court,
Rajkot in Reference (LCR) No.292/1993 dated 28.03.2001, whereby, the
reference was partly allowed and the petitioner has been directed to
pay 40% back wages for the period from the date of his termination to
the date of his attaining the age of superannuation.
2. The
facts in brief are that the respondent was serving as a daily wage
labourer with the petitioner-Municipality. It is the case of the
petitioner that the respondent voluntarily abandoned the duties with
effect from 13.01.1993 and in spite of that he raised a dispute,
which, ultimately, culminated into a reference before the Court
below. During the pendency of the said reference, the respondent
attained the age of superannuation. Therefore, the Court below, while
holding the action of termination of the petitioner to be bad in law,
directed the petitioner to pay the respondent 40% back wages for the
period from the date of his termination to the date of his attaining
the age of superannuation. Being aggrieved by the said award, the
petitioner has preferred the present petition.
3. Heard
learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents on
record.
4. Though
served none appears on behalf of the respondent.
5. While
awarding the back wages, the Court below has not given any cogent
reasons. It has simply proceeded on the footing that since the action
of the petitioner terminating the services of the respondent has been
found to be illegal, the respondent is entitled for the back wages.
6.
Looking to the facts of the case, 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. In that
case, 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 also 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.
7.
It 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,
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.
8. Considering
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.
9. For
the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed. The impugned award
passed by the Court below is quashed and set aside. It is, however,
clarified that since the respondent has already retired from service,
the petitioner shall pay the retirement benefits within a period of
three months from today, if the same has not been paid so far. Rule
is made absolute. No costs.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.]
Pravin/*
Top