Case Note & Summary
The Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service (petitioner) filed two Special Civil Applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, challenging the common judgment and awards dated 18.6.2019 passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No.491 of 2011 and Reference (LCA) No.490 of 2011. The Labour Court had partly allowed the references and directed reinstatement with continuity of service but without backwages to the respondent-workmen, Hareshkumar Shankarlal Trivedi and Jayantibhai Merubhai Patel. The respondent-workmen were employed as daily-wage badli drivers with the petitioner Corporation, engaged in the year 1997. They worked intermittently, with varying number of days per year, as shown in a table in the judgment. In 2002, due to a massive financial crisis and non-availability of work, the petitioner Corporation discharged/relieved the badli workers, including the respondents. The respondents raised industrial disputes, which were referred to the Labour Court. The Labour Court, after considering the evidence, held that the termination was illegal as the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act were not complied with. However, considering the financial crisis of the Corporation, the Labour Court granted reinstatement without backwages. The petitioner Corporation challenged the awards, arguing that the respondents were not workmen and that the termination was due to lack of work. The High Court, after hearing the parties, found no merit in the petitions. The Court noted that the Labour Court had correctly appreciated the evidence and that the awards were just and proper. The High Court dismissed the petitions, upholding the Labour Court's awards. The Court also observed that the respondent-workmen had not challenged the denial of backwages, and thus the awards had attained finality to that extent.
Headnote
A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 25F - Retrenchment - Badli Worker - Daily-Wage Driver - The Labour Court held that the termination of the respondent-workmen, who were daily-wage badli drivers, without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was illegal. The Court directed reinstatement with continuity of service but without backwages, considering the financial crisis of the petitioner Corporation. (Paras 1-7) B) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Judicial Review - Labour Court Award - The High Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction, declined to interfere with the Labour Court's award, finding no perversity or error of law. The Court held that the Labour Court's discretion in granting reinstatement without backwages was just and proper, given the facts and circumstances. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Labour Court was justified in ordering reinstatement with continuity of service but without backwages to the respondent-workmen who were daily-wage badli drivers, and whether the impugned awards require interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed both petitions, upholding the Labour Court's awards dated 18.6.2019. The Court found no merit in the petitions and held that the Labour Court's discretion in granting reinstatement without backwages was just and proper.
Law Points
- Reinstatement without backwages
- Badli worker
- Daily-wage driver
- Section 25F Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Retrenchment compensation
- Notice pay
- Financial crisis of employer
- Labour Court award
- Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India
