Case Note & Summary
The State of Gujarat, through the Deputy Conservator of Forest, filed a writ petition challenging an award dated 29.01.2025 passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference-T (LCA) No.406 of 2016. The Labour Court had directed reinstatement of the respondent workman, Navinji Sakraji Thakor, with continuity of service. The petitioner argued that the workman's services were terminated following a Government Resolution dated 15.09.2014 which mandated engagement of daily wagers through outsourcing agencies, and that due procedure of retrenchment was followed. The petitioner contended that the workman had not completed 240 days of work in five consecutive years and was not entitled to reinstatement. The respondent workman, represented by Mr. U.T. Mishra, submitted that he was appointed as a daily wager on 01.05.2008 and worked continuously until his illegal termination on 08.05.2015. The Labour Court had found that the workman had worked for 240 days in the preceding year and that the retrenchment was illegal for non-compliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The High Court, after considering the submissions and evidence, held that the Labour Court's findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence. The workman had testified that he worked for 240 days, and the petitioner failed to produce muster rolls to rebut this. The retrenchment was held illegal as no notice or retrenchment compensation was paid. The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the award of reinstatement with continuity of service.
Headnote
A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 25F - Retrenchment - Compliance - The retrenchment of a daily wager without complying with the mandatory requirements of Section 25F, including payment of retrenchment compensation and notice, is illegal. The Labour Court's finding that the workman had worked for 240 days in the preceding year and that the retrenchment was illegal was upheld. (Paras 4-5) B) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 25B - Continuous Service - Burden of Proof - The burden is on the workman to prove that he has worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months. However, once the workman adduces evidence, the employer must produce relevant records. In this case, the workman's testimony and the employer's failure to produce muster rolls led to the inference that the workman had completed 240 days. (Para 4) C) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Reinstatement - Relief - Where retrenchment is found illegal, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule. The Labour Court's award of reinstatement with continuity of service was confirmed. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the retrenchment of the respondent workman was legal and valid, and whether the Labour Court was justified in ordering reinstatement with continuity of service.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the Labour Court award dated 29.01.2025 directing reinstatement of the respondent workman with continuity of service.
Law Points
- Burden of proof on workman to show 240 days of continuous service
- Retrenchment without compliance with Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act is illegal
- Reinstatement with continuity of service is proper relief for illegal retrenchment
