Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, the Executive Engineer of Palkhed Canal Division, Nasik, challenged an award dated 19th June, 1996 passed by the Labour Court, Nasik, which declared the termination of the Respondent, Pandharinath Chindu Kale, as unfair, illegal, and improper, and directed reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages from 1st May, 1980, deducting amounts received by the Respondent from 29th January, 1982 onwards. The Respondent had worked as a Mukadam and Patkari (canal inspector) between 1st July, 1976 and 1st May, 1980, with breaks, but had worked for more than 240 days in each year except the first year. The Labour Court found that the Respondent's services were orally terminated on 1st May, 1980 without any written notice and without compliance with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Petitioner contended that the Respondent was not a workman under Section 2(s) and was only a temporary employee. The High Court held that even a temporary employee is a workman under Section 2(s) and entitled to the protection of Section 25-F. The Court found that the Labour Court's finding that the Respondent had worked for more than 240 days in each relevant year was not challenged and did not warrant interference. The termination was held illegal for non-compliance with Section 25-F. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Labour Court's award of reinstatement with back wages.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Definition of Workman - Temporary Employee - Section 2(s) and Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The main question was whether a temporary employee is a workman under Section 2(s) and entitled to protection under Section 25-F. The Court held that even a temporary employee is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) and is entitled to the benefit of Section 25-F. (Paras 3-4) B) Industrial Law - Termination - Non-Compliance with Section 25-F - Illegal Termination - The Respondent's services were orally terminated without any written notice and without following the provisions of Section 25-F. The Court held that the termination was illegal and improper. (Paras 5-6) C) Industrial Law - Back Wages - Reinstatement - The Labour Court directed reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages from the date of termination, deducting amounts received by the Respondent from 29th January, 1982 onwards. The High Court upheld the award. (Paras 1, 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Respondent is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) and Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and whether his termination was illegal.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the Labour Court's award dated 19th June, 1996, which declared the termination of the Respondent's services as unfair, illegal, and improper, and directed reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages from 1st May, 1980, deducting amounts received by the Respondent from 29th January, 1982 onwards.
Law Points
- Temporary employee is a workman under Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Termination without compliance with Section 25-F is illegal
- Workman working for more than 240 days in a year is entitled to protection under Section 25-F
