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 and 30% back wages. The respondent workman was appointed as a Daily Wager on 01.05.2008 and worked continuously until his termination on 08.05.2015. The termination was effected following a Government Resolution dated 15.09.2014 which mandated that daily wagers for seasonal work be engaged only through outsourcing agencies. The petitioner contended that the retrenchment was in accordance with law, as due procedure was followed, including notice and payment of retrenchment compensation. The petitioner further argued that the workman had not completed 5 consecutive years of 240 days each, and thus was not entitled to reinstatement. The respondent workman argued that his termination was illegal and that he had worked for 240 days in each year. The High Court examined the submissions and the evidence on record. The Court noted that the Labour Court had found that the retrenchment compensation was not paid at the time of termination, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Court also observed that the workman had produced evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months, and the burden then shifted to the employer to disprove the same, which the petitioner failed to do. The High Court held that the Labour Court's findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not warrant interference. The petition was dismissed, and the award of reinstatement with continuity of service and 30% back wages was upheld.
Headnote
A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 25F - Retrenchment - Validity - Daily wager worked from 01.05.2008 to 08.05.2015 - Termination due to G.R. dated 15.09.2014 directing engagement through outsourcing agency - Labour Court found retrenchment illegal for non-compliance with Section 25F - Held that retrenchment compensation was not paid at the time of termination, rendering retrenchment void - Reinstatement with continuity of service and 30% back wages upheld (Paras 1-5). B) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 25B - Continuous Service - Burden of Proof - Workman claimed to have worked for 240 days in each of the preceding 5 years - Petitioner argued workman failed to prove 240 days for 5 consecutive years - Held that once workman establishes 240 days in the preceding 12 months, burden shifts to employer to disprove - Labour Court's finding of continuous service not interfered with (Paras 2-4).
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 and 30% back wages.
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 and 30% back wages.
Law Points
- Burden of proof on workman to establish 240 days of continuous service
- Retrenchment compensation must be paid at time of termination
- Reinstatement with continuity of service is proper relief for illegal retrenchment
