Case Note & Summary
The State of Gujarat filed a Special Civil Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, challenging an award dated 7.10.2023 passed by the Labour Court, Valsad, in Reference (LCV) No. 40 of 2016. The respondent, Pravinbhai Genabhai Baras, was employed as a Watchman with the petitioner for 4 years, drawing a monthly salary of Rs.5,897/-. On 1.7.2015, he was orally and arbitrarily discharged from service without following due procedure. Aggrieved, the workman raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, which awarded reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% backwages. The petitioner challenged this award, arguing that the respondent had not worked for 240 days and that the Labour Court's order was without application of mind. The respondent's counsel supported the award, submitting that the termination was illegal and the Labour Court had correctly appreciated the evidence. The High Court, after hearing both sides, found no perversity or illegality in the Labour Court's award. The court noted that the employer failed to prove that the workman had not worked for 240 days and that the termination was oral and arbitrary without following due process. The petition was dismissed, and the award of reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% backwages was upheld.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Termination - Oral Termination - Section 25F, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The respondent workman was orally and arbitrarily discharged from service without following due procedure - The Labour Court awarded reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% backwages - The High Court upheld the award, finding no perversity or illegality - Held that the employer failed to prove that the workman had not worked for 240 days and that the termination was illegal (Paras 2-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Labour Court's award of reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% backwages for an orally terminated watchman was justified under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the Labour Court's award dated 7.10.2023, which granted reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% backwages to the respondent workman.
Law Points
- Reinstatement with backwages
- Termination without due process
- Burden of proof on employer
- Section 25F Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Oral termination illegal
Case Details
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16354 of 2025
Mr. Mrunal Dholaria (AGP) for Petitioner, Mr. Jignesh D. Lamba and Mr. Yogen N. Pandya for Respondent
Pravinbhai Genabhai Baras
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Special Civil Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an award of the Labour Court in an industrial dispute.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner (State of Gujarat) sought quashing and setting aside of the Labour Court's award dated 7.10.2023.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was aggrieved by the Labour Court's award of reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% backwages to the respondent workman.
Previous Decisions
The Labour Court, Valsad, passed an award dated 7.10.2023 in Reference (LCV) No. 40 of 2016, awarding reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% backwages.
Issues
Whether the Labour Court's award of reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% backwages was justified given the oral termination of the workman.
Whether the employer proved that the workman had not worked for 240 days to avoid compliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner (State of Gujarat) argued that the respondent had not worked for 240 days, so there was no violation of the Industrial Disputes Act, and the Labour Court's order was without application of mind.
Respondent (workman) argued that the termination was oral and arbitrary without following due procedure, and the Labour Court correctly appreciated the evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
The employer failed to prove that the workman had not worked for 240 days, and the termination was oral and arbitrary without following due procedure under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, the Labour Court's award of reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% backwages was justified and not perverse.
Judgment Excerpts
Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India r/w the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act challenging the impugned award dated 7.10.2023 in Reference (LCV) No. 40 of 2016 passed by the Labour Court, Valsad, whereby the Labour Court has awarded reinstatement with continuity of service with 50% backwages.
Facts of the case are that the respondent was working, as a Watchman with the petitioner for 4 years and drawing monthly salary of Rs.5,897/-. On 1.7.2015. The respondent was orally and arbitrarily discharged from service by the petitioner without following due procedure.
He has submitted that the respondent had not worked for 240 days at any point of time and therefore, there is no violation of provision of Industrial Disputes Act.
On the other hand, Mr. Pandya, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Labour Court is just, proper and legal and the same does not require any interference by this Court.
Procedural History
The respondent workman was orally terminated on 1.7.2015. He raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Valsad, which was registered as Reference (LCV) No. 40 of 2016. The Labour Court passed an award on 7.10.2023 granting reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% backwages. The State of Gujarat challenged this award by filing Special Civil Application No. 16354 of 2025 before the High Court of Gujarat, which was dismissed on 17.2.2026.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 25F
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
