Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s. Bajaj Auto Limited, challenged the award of the First Labour Court, Pune, in Reference (IDA) No.36 of 1990, which directed reinstatement of the respondent-workman, Ashok Dnyanoba Dhumal, with continuity of service and full backwages. The respondent was employed as a daily rated unskilled helper on a temporary basis in six intermittent spells between 23-07-1984 and 15-11-1987, working a total of 464 days across all spells. The last spell was from 16-03-1987 to 15-11-1987, during which he worked 119 days. After 15-11-1987, he was not employed. The workman raised an industrial dispute claiming illegal retrenchment. The Labour Court held that he had completed 240 days of continuous service and that his retrenchment without compliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was illegal, ordering reinstatement with full backwages. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the workman had not worked for 240 days in the 12 months preceding the alleged retrenchment (i.e., from 15-11-1986 to 15-11-1987). The Labour Court had erroneously aggregated service across different spells. The High Court held that for a daily wager, continuous service under Section 25B requires 240 days of actual work in the preceding 12 months. Since the workman failed to prove this, the protection of Section 25F was not available. The High Court also noted that even if retrenchment was illegal, reinstatement is not automatic for temporary/daily wagers; the Labour Court ought to have considered the nature of employment and granted compensation instead. The petition was allowed, the impugned award was quashed, and the reference was answered against the workman.
Headnote
A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 25B - Continuous Service - Daily Wager - The workman worked for 119 days in the last spell and did not complete 240 days in the 12 months preceding the alleged retrenchment. The Labour Court erred in holding that the workman had completed 240 days by aggregating service across different spells. Held that for a daily wager, continuous service under Section 25B requires 240 days of actual work in the preceding 12 months, and the workman failed to prove this. (Paras 1-5) B) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 25F - Retrenchment - Conditions Precedent - Since the workman did not complete 240 days of continuous service, the requirement of notice or compensation under Section 25F was not attracted. The Labour Court's finding of illegal retrenchment was perverse and based on misreading of evidence. Held that the award of reinstatement with backwages was unsustainable. (Paras 5-7) C) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Reinstatement - Daily Wager - Even if retrenchment was illegal, reinstatement is not automatic for temporary/daily wagers. The workman was a daily wager employed for short periods and had no right to the post. Held that the Labour Court ought to have considered the nature of employment and granted compensation instead of reinstatement. (Para 7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent-workman, who worked as a daily wager for intermittent periods, had completed 240 days of continuous service in the 12 months preceding his alleged retrenchment, and whether the Labour Court's award of reinstatement with full backwages was justified.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned award of the First Labour Court, Pune, and answered the reference against the workman. The rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Section 25B of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947 defines continuous service
- Section 25F requires notice or compensation for retrenchment
- daily wager not completing 240 days in 12 months preceding retrenchment is not entitled to protection
- reinstatement with backwages not automatic for temporary workmen
