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.197 of 2005. The Labour Court had partly allowed the reference and directed the petitioners to reinstate the respondent no.1-workman 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 workman was not appointed as per recruitment rules, there was no sanctioned post, and the Labour Court passed an ex parte order without hearing them. They contended that the workman had not completed 240 days of service and that the Labour Court erred in ordering reinstatement. The respondent-workman's counsel submitted that the workman had worked for over 9 years and the petitioners failed to contest the reference despite being given opportunities. The High Court noted that the petitioners had appeared initially but thereafter chose not to participate, and the Labour Court had no option but to decide the matter on available evidence. The Court found no infirmity in the Labour Court's order and dismissed the petition, upholding the award of reinstatement without back wages.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Reinstatement of Daily Wager - Ex Parte Order - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 10 - The employer failed to contest the reference despite opportunities, leading to an ex parte award of reinstatement without back wages - The High Court held that the Labour Court's order was justified as the employer did not produce evidence to rebut the workman's claim of 240 days of service - Held that the petition was dismissed (Paras 1-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Labour Court was justified in ordering reinstatement of a daily wager without back wages when the employer failed to contest the reference proceedings.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the Labour Court's award of reinstatement without back wages with continuity of service.
Law Points
- Labour Court can pass ex parte order if employer fails to contest
- Daily wager completing 240 days entitled to reinstatement
- Reinstatement without back wages is proper when employer fails to produce evidence
Case Details
2026 LawText (GUJ) (03) 365
R/Special Civil Application No. 4436 of 2016
Ms. Sweety Samara (AGP) for Petitioners, Mr. Mukesh H. Rathod for Respondent No.1
Deputy Executive Engineer & Anr.
Nathabhai Parbatbhai Karavadara, & Anr.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution challenging the Labour Court's award of reinstatement without back wages.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing and setting aside of the Labour Court's order 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.
Previous Decisions
Labour Court partly allowed Reference (LCJ) No.197 of 2005 on 14.08.2014, directing reinstatement without back wages with continuity of service.
Issues
Whether the Labour Court was justified in ordering reinstatement of a daily wager without back wages when the employer failed to contest the reference proceedings.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the workman was not appointed as per rules, there was no sanctioned post, and the Labour Court passed an ex parte order without hearing them.
Respondent-workman argued that he worked for over 9 years and the petitioners failed to contest despite opportunities, so the Labour Court's order was proper.
Ratio Decidendi
When an employer fails to contest a reference despite opportunities, the Labour Court is justified in passing an ex parte award based on available evidence. Reinstatement without back wages is proper for a daily wager who has completed 240 days of service.
Judgment Excerpts
The present petition impugns the judgment and order dated 14.08.2014 passed in Reference (LCJ) No.197 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 raised a dispute which was referred to the Labour Court as Reference (LCJ) No.197 of 2005. The Labour Court partly allowed the reference on 14.08.2014, directing reinstatement without back wages. The petitioners challenged this order by filing Special Civil Application No. 4436 of 2016 before the High Court of Gujarat, which was dismissed on 09.03.2026.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 10
