Case Note & Summary
The present petition was filed by the Deputy Executive Engineer and another (petitioners) challenging the judgment and order dated 14.08.2014 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Junagadh, Camp at Porbandar in Reference (LCJ) No.196 of 2005. The Labour Court had partly allowed the reference and directed the petitioners to reinstate the respondent no.1-workman, Babubhai Bhojabhai Karavadara, without back wages with continuity in service. The respondent-workman was engaged as a daily wager in April 1994 and his services were discontinued after 01.10.2003. The petitioners argued that the Labour Court passed the order without evidence, that the workman was not appointed as per recruitment rules, and that the proceedings were ex parte as their right to defend was closed. The respondent-workman contended that he worked for over 9 years and that the petitioners, despite being served, chose not to contest the reference. The High Court noted that the petitioners had appeared initially but thereafter failed to file vakalatnama or reply despite opportunities. The Court held that the Labour Court had no option but to decide the reference on the available evidence. The Court found no error in the Labour Court's award and dismissed the petition, confirming the reinstatement without back wages with continuity of service.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Reinstatement of Daily Wager - Ex parte Proceedings - The employer failed to contest the reference despite opportunities, leading to an ex parte award of reinstatement without back wages with continuity of service - The High Court held that the Labour Court's order was just and proper as the employer did not produce evidence to rebut the workman's claim of having worked for more than 240 days (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Labour Court was justified in directing reinstatement of a daily wager without back wages with continuity of service when the employer failed to contest the reference proceedings.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the petition and confirmed the Labour Court's award dated 14.08.2014 directing reinstatement of the respondent-workman without back wages with continuity of service.
Law Points
- Reinstatement of daily wager
- Ex parte proceedings
- Burden of proof on employer
- Completion of 240 days
- Continuity of service
Case Details
2026 LawText (GUJ) (03) 364
R/Special Civil Application No. 4098 of 2016
Ms. Sweety Samara (AGP for petitioners), Mr. Mukesh H. Rathod (for respondent no.1)
Deputy Executive Engineer & Anr.
Babubhai Bhojabhai Karavadara & Anr.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award of the Labour Court directing reinstatement of a daily wager.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought quashing and setting aside of the Labour Court's award dated 14.08.2014.
Filing Reason
The petitioners contended that the Labour Court passed an ex parte order without evidence and that the workman was not entitled to reinstatement as he was a temporary daily wager.
Previous Decisions
The Labour Court partly allowed Reference (LCJ) No.196 of 2005 on 14.08.2014, directing reinstatement without back wages with continuity of service.
Issues
Whether the Labour Court's award of reinstatement without back wages with continuity of service was justified when the employer failed to contest the reference.
Whether the Labour Court could pass an ex parte order based on the evidence available on record.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the Labour Court passed the order without evidence, the workman was not appointed as per rules, and the proceedings were ex parte as their right to defend was closed.
Respondent-workman argued that he worked for over 9 years, the petitioners failed to contest despite opportunities, and the award was just and proper.
Ratio Decidendi
When an employer fails to contest reference proceedings despite opportunities, the Labour Court is justified in deciding the matter on the available evidence and may order reinstatement of a daily wager who has worked for a long period, especially when the employer does not rebut the claim of having worked for 240 days.
Judgment Excerpts
The present petition impugns the judgment and order dated 14.08.2014 passed in Reference (LCJ) No.196 of 2005 by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Junagadh, Camp at Porbandar, whereby the said reference has been partly allowed and the petitioners have been directed to reinstate the respondent no.1-workman without back wages with continuity in service.
Learned AGP Ms. Sweety Samara submits that the learned Labour Court has come to a conclusion that the respondent no.1-workman was entitled for reinstatement without any evidence on record and there was no material available before the Labour Court to pass such an order of reinstatement with continuity of service.
Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Mukesh Rathod appearing for the respondent no.1-workman submits that in the present case, the respondent-workman was a daily wager working with the petitioner from April, 1994 till September, 2003 i.e. for a period of more than 9 years.
Procedural History
The respondent-workman filed Reference (LCJ) No.196 of 2005 before the Labour Court, Junagadh. The Labour Court partly allowed the reference on 14.08.2014, directing reinstatement without back wages with continuity of service. The petitioners challenged this award by filing Special Civil Application No. 4098 of 2016 before the High Court of Gujarat. The High Court dismissed the petition on 09.03.2026.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
