JUDGMENT :

K.S. JHAVERI, J.

1. The petitioner-workman by way of preferring present petition being Special Civil Application No.884 of 2003 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, has inter alia prayed to quash and set aside the operative part of the judgment and award dated November 30, 2002 passed by the Labour Court, Surendranagar in I.D. Complaint Application No.4 of 1990 i.e. rejection of reinstatement of the petitioner workman from November 10, 2002, whereby the Labour Court partly allowed the Reference and directed the respondent-Panchayat to pay lump sum amount of Rs. 75,000/- to the petitioner-workman in lieu of back wages and to consider the petitioner workman as retired as on November 30, 2011 and to pay him admissible pensionary benefits after fixing his pension. The respondent-Panchayat has also by way of Special Civil Application No.7872 of 2003 challenged the legality and validity of the judgment and award to the effect that the Labour Court partly allowed the Reference and directed the respondent-Panchayat to pay lump sum amount of Rs. 75,000/- to the petitioner workman in lieu of back wages and to consider the petitioner-workman as retired as on November 30, 2011 and to pay him admissible pensionary benefits after fixing his pension.

2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner-workman raised an industrial dispute on the ground that the respondent-Panchayat had terminated his services in complete breach of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The dispute was numbered as I.D. Complaint Application No.4 of 1990 and it was decided by way of the impugned judgment and award. Being aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been preferred.

3. Though served, none appears on behalf of the petitioner-workman.

4. Having considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respondent-Panchayat and the documentary evidence produced on record as well as the averments made in the petition and the affidavit in- reply filed on behalf of the respondent-Panchayat, it transpires that the Labour Court has after appreciating the pros and cons of the matter set aside the order of retrenchment, but has not granted reinstatement to the petitioner-workman. It is required to be noted that the Labour Court has not restored the petitioner to his original position and has not granted reinstatement and, therefore, there is no question of granting the petitioner-workman any pensionary benefits, including fixation of pay. Further, such a direction issued by the Labour Court is nothing but contrary to rules and also beyond the term of Reference. Hence, the impugned order passed by the Labour Court in that respect is unjust and improper.

5. Insofar as granting of lump sum amount in liue of back wages is concerned, 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, (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. Thus, relying upon the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court, I am of the opinion that the petitioner workman is not entitled to any lump sum amount in lieu of back wages and therefore, the order of the Labour Court granting lump sum amount in lieu of back wages is unjust and improper and the same is required to be quashed and set aside.

6. In view of aforesaid, it is crystal clear that the Labour Court has committed gross error in passing the impugned judgment and order. Hence, the impugned judgment and order deserves to be quashed and set aside.

7. For the foregoi