Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, I.T.M. Vocational University, challenged the judgment and award dated 01.08.2023 passed by the Labour Court, Vadodara, in Reference (LCV) No. 554 of 2017. The respondent-workman, Naginbhai Jethabhai Parmar, joined the petitioner University in June 2012 as an Operator (Non-Teaching Staff). His services were terminated by an oral order on 01.07.2016. Aggrieved, the workman filed a claim form before the Labour Court seeking a declaration that the termination was illegal, unlawful, and bad in law. The petitioner filed a detailed written statement on 23.09.2019. After hearing the parties and examining oral and documentary evidence, the Labour Court partly allowed the reference and directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with continuity of service along with 50% backwages. The petitioner challenged this award before the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The High Court examined the impugned award and found that the Labour Court had correctly appreciated the evidence and concluded that the termination was illegal as it was by oral order without any domestic inquiry or notice. The High Court held that there was no perversity or error in the Labour Court's findings and that the award did not require any interference. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the Labour Court's award was upheld.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Illegal Termination - Oral Termination - Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The respondent-workman was terminated by oral order without any domestic inquiry or notice - The Labour Court held the termination illegal and directed reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% backwages - The High Court upheld the award, finding no perversity or error in the Labour Court's findings (Paras 1-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of the respondent-workman by oral order without following due process of law is illegal and whether the Labour Court's award of reinstatement with 50% backwages is justified.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the Labour Court's award dated 01.08.2023 directing reinstatement of the respondent-workman with continuity of service and 50% backwages.
Law Points
- Termination by oral order is illegal
- Reinstatement with continuity of service
- 50% backwages
- No requirement of domestic inquiry for oral termination
- Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
