JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. By way of this petition, the Petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Anand in Reference (LCA) No. 816/1992 dated August 25, 1999, whereby, the reference preferred by the Respondent-workman was allowed and the Petitioner has been directed to reinstate the workman on his original post with continuity of service and full back wages. The facts in brief, as emerging from the record, are that the Respondent herein was working as a Cook in the Canteen run by the Petitioner-Company and had worked as such for about seven years. On September 10, 1990 his services came to be terminated on the alleged ground that he had misbehaved with the Administrator of the Canteen. Being aggrieved by the said action, the Respondent raised a dispute, which, ultimately, culminated into a reference before the Court below, The Labour Court, after considering the evidence on record, allowed the reference of the Respondent by passing the impugned award. Hence, this petition. 2. Mr. D.G. Chauhan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that the Respondent was appointed as a temporary Cook by the Secretary of the Consumer Society run and managed by the employees of the Petitioner-Company and that there never existed a master servant relationship between the Petitioner-Company and the Respondent. He further submitted that the Court below has also failed to appreciate the fact that the Respondent was gainfully employed and that he was earning Rs.375/- per month as salary from the Petitioner-Company. He has, therefore, submitted that the impugned award passed by the Court below deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. Mr. M.N. Devnani, learned Counsel for the Respondent, submitted that the Manager of the Petitioner-Company was the Ex-officio Chairman of the Society, which was running the said Canteen. He further submitted that the Canteen was situated in the factory premises and that all the expenses of the Canteen were borne by the Petitioner-Company. Therefore, the Court below has rightly concluded that it was a statutory Canteen run and managed by the Petitioner for the benefit of its employees. Hence, the impugned award passed by the Court below may not be interfered with. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on records. Therefore, the Court below has rightly concluded that it was a statutory Canteen run and managed by the Petitioner for the benefit of its employees. Hence, the impugned award passed by the Court below may not be interfered with. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on records. The fact that the Respondent-workman was working as a Cook at the relevant time in the Canteen situated within the factory premises of the Petitioner-Company is not in dispute. Before the Court below, no documentary evidence was produced by the Petitioner to show that the said Canteen was run/managed exclusively by the members of the said Society. 5. In fact, from the evidence led by one Kiritbhai Shankarlal Shah (Exhibit 21), who was one of the witnesses examined on behalf of the Petitioner-Company, it is established that there is no agreement between the Petitioner-Company and the said Society to the effect that the Canteen was to be run/managed by the members of the said Society. In the licence issued to the Canteen also, it has been mentioned that the Canteen is of the Petitioner-Company. The expenses towards the food items and such other related expenses of the Canteen were borne by the Management of the Petitioner-Company. It has also come out from the evidence of the said witness that the Manager of the Petitioner-Company is the Ex-officio Chairman of the Canteen. It is also established that no notice or notice pay or retrenchment compensation was paid to the Respondent before terminating his services. 6. Looking to the entire evidence on record, it could be safely concluded that the Canteen situated in the factory premises was run and managed by the Petitioner-Company and not by the members of the Society. It is required to be noted that the Society in question was not made a party in the proceedings before the Court below. Keeping in mind the aforesaid factual aspects, I am of the view that the Court below was justified in passing the impugned award of reinstatement with continuity of service. 7. However, so far as the issue regarding back wages is concerned, the Court below ha not given any cogent reasons for awarding back wages to the workman. In fact, it is established from the record that the Respondent was gainfully employed. In the case of Ram Ahsrey Singh and Another Vs. 7. However, so far as the issue regarding back wages is concerned, the Court below ha not given any cogent reasons for awarding back wages to the workman. In fact, it is established from the record that the Respondent was gainfully employed. In the case of Ram Ahsrey Singh and Another Vs. Ram Bux Singh and Others, AIR 2003 SC 1579 the Hon'ble 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 Vs. Rudhan Singh, AIR 2005 SC 3966 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. It would also be relevant to refer to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (A.P.S.R.T.C.) and Others Vs. Abdul Kareem, AIR 2005 SC 3791 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. 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. Hence, the impugned award granting back wages deserves to be quashed and set aside. 8. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Petitioner-Company is closed down. Therefore, the Respondent shall be entitled for all benefits from the date of his termination till the date when the Petitioner-Company was closed down. In my opinion, if the Respondent is awarded 50% back wages from the date of his termination till the closure of the Petitioner-Company or is awarded the closure compensation, whichever is higher, the same would meet with the ends of justice. 9. Consequently, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned award of the Court below is modified to the extent that the Respondent-workman shall be entitled for 50% back wages from the date of his termination till the closure of the Petitioner-Company OR closure compensation, whichever is higher. 9. Consequently, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned award of the Court below is modified to the extent that the Respondent-workman shall be entitled for 50% back wages from the date of his termination till the closure of the Petitioner-Company OR closure compensation, whichever is higher. Such payment shall be made within a period of three months from today. With the above direction, the petition stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the above extent with no order as to costs.