Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a Municipal Corporation, challenged the judgment and order dated 10.03.2008 passed by the 3rd Labour Court, Mumbai in Reference (IDA) No. 397/2003, which directed reinstatement of the respondent worker with continuity of service and 50% back wages. The respondent was employed as a Caretaker cum Gardener (Mali) on daily wages. The Labour Court found that the termination was effected without holding any domestic inquiry and without complying with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Corporation argued that the respondent was a daily wager and not a permanent employee, and that the termination was due to the work being entrusted to a contractor. The High Court held that the Labour Court's findings were based on evidence and not perverse. It noted that the Corporation had not complied with the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F before terminating the worker. The Court upheld the reinstatement order and the award of 50% back wages, observing that the worker had been reinstated pursuant to interim orders and was working since then. The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Illegal Termination - Daily Wager - Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Termination of a daily wager without holding a domestic inquiry and without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is illegal and void. The Labour Court's order of reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages was upheld. (Paras 1-5)
B) Industrial Law - Reinstatement - Back Wages - Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal remedy for illegal termination. The Labour Court's award of 50% back wages was not interfered with as it was based on evidence. (Paras 4-5)
C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - The High Court, while exercising writ jurisdiction, does not sit as an appellate court over the findings of the Labour Court. Interference is warranted only if the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of the respondent worker by the petitioner corporation without holding a domestic inquiry and without complying with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was legal and justified.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Labour Court's order dated 10.03.2008 directing reinstatement of the respondent worker with continuity of service and 50% back wages. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Termination of a daily wager without complying with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947 is illegal and void
- Reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal remedy for illegal termination
- Labour Court's findings on facts are final and not to be interfered with under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution unless perverse
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (12) 116
Writ Petition No. 1012 of 2009
Ms. Dhruti Kapadia a/w Mr. R.Y. Sirsikar and Mr. Sagar Patel for Petitioner – Corporation, Mr. Sanjiv A. Sawant a/w Ms. Samiksha S. Mane i/by Mr. Samir M. Suryawanshi for Respondent
The Administrative Officer (School) Municipal Mahanagar Palika
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and order of the Labour Court directing reinstatement of a daily wager.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner Corporation sought to quash the Labour Court's order dated 10.03.2008 directing reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages.
Filing Reason
The Corporation challenged the Labour Court's finding that termination of the respondent worker was illegal for want of domestic inquiry and non-compliance with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Previous Decisions
The 3rd Labour Court, Mumbai in Reference (IDA) No. 397/2003 passed an award dated 10.03.2008 directing reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages. On 20.03.2009, Rule was granted and interim relief was granted directing reinstatement within one month, which was complied with.
Issues
Whether the termination of the respondent worker by the petitioner corporation without holding a domestic inquiry and without complying with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was legal and justified.
Whether the Labour Court's award of reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages was perverse and warranted interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner Corporation argued that the respondent was a daily wager and not a permanent employee, and that the work was entrusted to a contractor, hence termination was justified.
Respondent worker argued that termination was without any inquiry and without compliance with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that the Labour Court's findings were based on evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
Termination of a daily wager without holding a domestic inquiry and without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is illegal and void. Reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal remedy for such illegal termination. The High Court, while exercising writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, does not sit as an appellate court over the findings of the Labour Court and will not interfere unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence.
Judgment Excerpts
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the Petitioner (for short 'the Corporation' i.e. employer) to challenge the judgement and order dated 10.03.2008 passed by the 3rd Labour Court, Mumbai in Reference (IDA) No. 397/2003.
The Labour Court has held that the termination of the Respondent Worker was effected without holding any domestic inquiry and without complying with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The findings recorded by the Labour Court are based on evidence and are not perverse. Hence, no interference is warranted.
Procedural History
The respondent worker raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the 3rd Labour Court, Mumbai as Reference (IDA) No. 397/2003. The Labour Court passed an award on 10.03.2008 directing reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages. The petitioner Corporation filed the present Writ Petition on 20.03.2009, on which Rule was granted and interim relief was granted directing reinstatement within one month. The respondent was reinstated and has been working since then. The writ petition was finally heard and dismissed on 22.12.2023.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 25-F
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
