Gujarat High Court Partially Allows Employer's Petition and Dismisses Employee's Petition in Industrial Dispute — Labour Court Award Modified to Grant Lump Sum Compensation Instead of Reinstatement and Backwages. Employee's Termination Found Illegal but Reinstatement Not Justified Due to Delay and Lack of Evidence of Willingness to Work; Compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- Awarded in Lieu of Reinstatement and Backwages.

High Court: Gujarat High Court
  • 1181
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The judgment concerns two petitions filed under Articles 14, 21, 226, and 227 of the Constitution of India read with the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, challenging an award dated 05.01.2022 passed by the Labour Court, Godhra in Reference (T) No. 149 of 2013. The employer (Deputy Executive Engineer) filed Special Civil Application No. 3554 of 2023 seeking to quash the award insofar as it granted reinstatement with continuity of service and 30% backwages to the workman (Bhathibhai Nathabhai Talar). The workman filed Special Civil Application No. 23996 of 2022 seeking full backwages instead of 30%. The workman was employed as a daily wager with the Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board from 1993 to 2003, when his services were terminated without compliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. He raised a dispute in 2013, which was referred to the Labour Court. The Labour Court held the termination illegal and directed reinstatement with continuity and 30% backwages. The High Court examined the legality of the termination and the relief granted. It upheld the finding that the termination was illegal due to non-compliance with Section 25F. However, considering the delay of 10 years in raising the dispute, the workman's failure to prove willingness to work, and the nature of employment (daily wager), the High Court held that reinstatement was not justified. Instead, it modified the award to grant a lump sum compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and backwages. The employer's petition was partly allowed, and the workman's petition was dismissed.

Headnote

A) Industrial Law - Termination of Service - Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Compliance with Mandatory Pre-conditions - The Labour Court found that the employer failed to comply with Section 25F before terminating the workman, rendering the termination illegal. The High Court upheld this finding, noting that no notice, notice pay, or retrenchment compensation was paid. (Paras 5-6)

B) Industrial Law - Reinstatement - Section 11A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Discretion of Labour Court - The Labour Court has discretion to award reinstatement or compensation. The High Court held that reinstatement is not automatic and must be considered in light of facts, including delay and the workman's conduct. (Paras 7-8)

C) Industrial Law - Backwages - Section 11A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Entitlement to Full Backwages - The workman is not entitled to full backwages automatically; the burden is on the workman to prove willingness to work. The High Court found that the workman failed to establish that he was willing and available for work after termination, and thus modified the award to grant lump sum compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and backwages. (Paras 9-10)

D) Industrial Law - Delay in Raising Dispute - Effect on Relief - The workman raised the dispute after 10 years, which is a relevant factor in determining relief. The High Court noted that the delay indicates lack of bona fides and disentitles the workman to reinstatement and full backwages. (Para 8)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Labour Court's award granting reinstatement with continuity of service and 30% backwages to the workman is legal and justified, and whether the employer's challenge to the award and the workman's claim for full backwages should be allowed.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court partly allowed the employer's petition (SCA/3554/2023) and dismissed the workman's petition (SCA/23996/2022). The Labour Court award was modified: instead of reinstatement and 30% backwages, the employer was directed to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the workman within eight weeks. The workman was not entitled to any other relief.

Law Points

  • Industrial Disputes Act
  • 1947
  • Section 25F
  • Section 11A
  • Section 2(oo)
  • Section 2(s)
  • Section 10
  • Section 17B
  • Constitution of India
  • Articles 14
  • 21
  • 226
  • 227
  • Labour Court
  • Award
  • Reinstatement
  • Backwages
  • Compensation
  • Termination
  • Retrenchment
  • Workman
  • Employer
  • Delay
  • Willingness to Work
  • Lump Sum Compensation
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (GUJ) (02) 76

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3554 of 2023 with R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 23996 of 2022

2026-02-20

Hemant M. Prachchhak

Mr. Dipak R. Dave for the Petitioner(s) No. 1, Ms. Agneya Mankad, Asst. Government Pleader for the Respondent(s) No. 1 in SCA/3554/2023, Ms. Roshni Patel, Asst. Government Pleader for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 in SCA/23996/2022

Bhathibhai Nathabhai Talar (in SCA/3554/2023) and Deputy Executive Engineer (in SCA/23996/2022)

Deputy Executive Engineer (in SCA/3554/2023) and Bhathibhai Nathabhai Talar (in SCA/23996/2022)

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Industrial dispute regarding termination of a workman employed as a daily wager.

Remedy Sought

The employer sought to quash the Labour Court award granting reinstatement with continuity and 30% backwages; the workman sought full backwages.

Filing Reason

The workman was terminated without compliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the Labour Court awarded reinstatement with 30% backwages, which both parties challenged.

Previous Decisions

The Labour Court, Godhra, in Reference (T) No. 149 of 2013, passed an award dated 05.01.2022, holding the termination illegal and directing reinstatement with continuity of service and 30% backwages.

Issues

Whether the Labour Court's award granting reinstatement with continuity of service and 30% backwages is legal and justified. Whether the workman is entitled to full backwages instead of 30%.

Submissions/Arguments

The employer argued that the workman was not a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act, that the termination was legal, and that the Labour Court erred in granting reinstatement and backwages. The workman argued that the termination was illegal and that he was entitled to full backwages as he was willing to work.

Ratio Decidendi

The termination was illegal due to non-compliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, reinstatement is not automatic; the court must consider delay in raising the dispute, the workman's conduct, and the nature of employment. In this case, the workman raised the dispute after 10 years and failed to prove willingness to work, so lump sum compensation was appropriate instead of reinstatement and backwages.

Judgment Excerpts

The Labour Court found that the employer failed to comply with Section 25F before terminating the workman, rendering the termination illegal. The High Court held that reinstatement is not automatic and must be considered in light of facts, including delay and the workman's conduct. The workman failed to establish that he was willing and available for work after termination, and thus the award was modified to grant lump sum compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and backwages.

Procedural History

The workman was employed from 1993 to 2003. His services were terminated in 2003. He raised a dispute in 2013, which was referred to the Labour Court, Godhra, as Reference (T) No. 149 of 2013. The Labour Court passed an award on 05.01.2022, granting reinstatement with continuity and 30% backwages. Both parties filed petitions before the High Court challenging the award. The High Court disposed of both petitions on 20.02.2026.

Acts & Sections

  • Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 25F, Section 11A, Section 2(oo), Section 2(s), Section 10, Section 17B
  • Constitution of India: Articles 14, 21, 226, 227
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Termination of Headmaster for Misconduct and Moral Turpitude. School Tribunal's order upheld as findings of misconduct were based on evidence and no procedural violation under MEPS Act.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Termination of Temporary Employees in College Tribunal Case — No Right to Regularisation for Ad Hoc Appointments. Employees appointed on temporary basis without following statutory selection process cannot claim permanency...