Case Note & Summary
The present petition was filed by the State of Gujarat and another (petitioners) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, challenging the award dated 12.10.2023 passed by the Labour Court, Rajkot in Reference (LCR) No. 95 of 2015. The respondent workman, Bhartiben Rameshbhai Baldha, was employed as a Worker/Watchman with the petitioners from 1.5.2007 and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.5,694/-. On 1.3.2015, the respondent was orally and arbitrarily discharged from service without following due procedure. Aggrieved, the workman raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, which vide the impugned award directed reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% backwages. The petitioners contended that the respondent was not in continuous service as per Section 25(B) of the I.D. Act and thus there was no breach of Section 25(F). The respondent argued that the Labour Court's finding that she had completed 240 days of service in the preceding year was based on evidence and not perverse. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the workman had indeed completed 240 days of service in the preceding year, thus deemed to be in continuous service under Section 25(B). Consequently, the termination without following the mandatory procedure under Section 25(F) was illegal. The Court held that the Labour Court's award of reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% backwages was just and proper, and dismissed the petition with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Continuous Service - Section 25(B) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The workman had worked for 240 days in the preceding year, thus deemed to be in continuous service - The Labour Court's finding that the workman completed 240 days was based on evidence and not perverse - Held that the workman was entitled to protection under Section 25(F) (Paras 7-8). B) Industrial Law - Retrenchment - Section 25(F) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Oral termination without notice or compensation is illegal - The employer failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 25(F) - Held that the termination was void ab initio and the workman is entitled to reinstatement (Paras 7-8). C) Industrial Law - Reinstatement and Backwages - Sections 11A and 25(F) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The Labour Court awarded reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% backwages - The High Court found no error in the award as the workman had completed 240 days and termination was illegal - Held that the award is just and proper (Paras 8-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Labour Court was justified in awarding reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% backwages to the respondent workman who was orally terminated without following due procedure, and whether the workman had completed 240 days of continuous service in the preceding year to attract protection under Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Labour Court award dated 12.10.2023. The Court held that the workman had completed 240 days of service in the preceding year, thus deemed to be in continuous service under Section 25(B), and the termination without following Section 25(F) was illegal. The award of reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% backwages was found to be just and proper. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Continuous service under Section 25(B) of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Breach of Section 25(F) of Industrial Disputes Act
- Reinstatement with continuity of service and backwages
- Oral termination without due procedure is illegal
