Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, which set aside the order of the Presiding Officer, First Labour Court, Pune, rejecting the reference and directed reinstatement of the workman, Balasaheb Maruti Poojari, with continuity of service and back wages from the date of reference till reinstatement. The workman had been employed as a 'Casual Mazdoor' with BSNL from 22 May 1984 to 28 February 1985, when his services were orally terminated. He claimed that he had worked continuously for more than 240 days and was terminated without notice or wages in lieu of notice, in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He raised an industrial dispute after a delay of about 9 years. The employer contended that the workman had abandoned service and that the delay was fatal. The Labour Court rejected the reference, but the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, ordering reinstatement. In the Letters Patent Appeal, the Division Bench upheld the Single Judge's order, holding that the delay was not fatal as the workman was a poor casual labourer and the employer did not suffer any prejudice. The court found that the termination was illegal and directed reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages from the date of reference.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Delay in Raising Dispute - Section 10, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Delay of about 9 years in raising industrial dispute is not fatal when the workman had continuous service of more than 240 days and termination was oral without notice - The Labour Court and the learned Single Judge rightly held that the delay was not a bar to the claim, as the workman was a poor casual labourer and the employer did not suffer any prejudice - Held that the delay does not disentitle the workman from seeking reinstatement (Paras 1-5). B) Industrial Law - Illegal Termination - Section 25F, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Oral termination of a workman who had served continuously for more than 240 days without any notice or payment of wages in lieu of notice is illegal and void - The employer's contention that the workman abandoned service was not accepted as the workman had consistently alleged termination - Held that the termination was in violation of Section 25F and the workman is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages (Paras 2-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the delay of about 9 years in raising the industrial dispute is fatal to the claim of the workman for reinstatement and back wages, and whether the workman is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages.
Final Decision
The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. The order of the learned Single Judge directing reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service and back wages from the date of reference till reinstatement is upheld.
Law Points
- Delay in raising industrial dispute is not fatal if workman has continuous service of 240 days and termination is illegal
- Reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is proper relief for illegal termination
- Oral termination without notice or wages in lieu of notice violates Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
