Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mangabhai Noghbhai Algotar, was employed as a driver with the respondents, BRTS City Link, Surat Municipal Corporation, from 16.12.2016 until his termination on 21.03.2018. He met with an accident on 26.01.2018 and sustained an eye injury. His services were terminated without following the procedure under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He lodged a complaint before the Conciliation Officer, Surat, and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Surat, as Reference (T) No. 96 of 2019. The Labour Court, after hearing both sides, rejected the reference by award dated 16.04.2024. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The High Court heard learned counsel for both parties. The petitioner argued that the termination was illegal and without compliance with Section 25F of the Act. The respondent contended that the petitioner had not completed 240 days of continuous service and that the termination was due to unauthorized absence after the accident. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the Labour Court had correctly held that the petitioner failed to prove that he had worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months. The court noted that the petitioner's own evidence showed he worked only from 16.12.2016 to 21.03.2018, with a break due to the accident, and thus did not meet the threshold for protection against retrenchment. The High Court also observed that the termination was for unauthorized absence, not retrenchment, and therefore no violation of Section 25F occurred. The court concluded that the Labour Court's findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence and were not perverse. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Labour Court's award.
Headnote
A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Retrenchment - Section 25F - Burden of Proof - Employee must prove continuous service of 240 days in preceding 12 months to claim protection against retrenchment - Petitioner failed to discharge burden - Labour Court's finding that petitioner did not complete 240 days upheld (Paras 7-8). B) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Termination - Absence After Accident - Termination for unauthorized absence after accident not amounting to retrenchment - Employer's action justified - No violation of Section 25F (Para 8). C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Articles 226 and 227 - Scope of Interference - High Court will not interfere with findings of fact recorded by Labour Court unless perverse or based on no evidence - Impugned award based on proper appreciation of evidence - No interference warranted (Para 9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of the petitioner-employee was illegal and in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and whether the Labour Court erred in rejecting the reference.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Labour Court's award dated 16.04.2024 rejecting the reference.
Law Points
- Burden of proof on employee to establish continuous service of 240 days
- Termination for unauthorized absence after accident not retrenchment
- Labour Court's findings of fact not to be interfered with under Articles 226 and 227 unless perverse
