Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Chandrakant Prabhakar Jadhav, was a daily wage worker appointed by the State of Maharashtra (Public Works Division) on 1 July 1984. He claimed to have worked continuously until 20 June 1987 (or 31 December 1987) and was terminated with effect from 1 January 1988 without following the procedure under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He approached the Deputy Commissioner of Labour on 30 October 1992, leading to a reference to the Labour Court, Ahmednagar (Reference IDA No. 128 of 1992). The Labour Court held that the appellant had worked for 240 days in a calendar year and that his termination was illegal, ordering reinstatement without back wages but with continuity of service. The respondent (State) challenged this decision in Writ Petition No. 2579 of 2000 before a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, who set aside the Labour Court's order, holding that the appellant had not proved 240 days of work. The appellant filed the present Letters Patent Appeal. The Division Bench (T.V. Nalawade and Sunil K. Kotwal, JJ.) allowed the appeal, reinstating the Labour Court's order. The court held that the Labour Court's finding of 240 days was based on evidence (muster rolls and oral testimony) and was not perverse; the Single Judge erred in re-appreciating evidence. The termination without compliance with Section 25F was illegal. The court upheld reinstatement without back wages, considering the long period since termination and the workman's lack of employment.
Headnote
A) Industrial Disputes - Retrenchment - Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Compliance with Pre-conditions - The appellant, a daily wage worker, claimed he worked continuously from 1-7-1984 to 31-12-1987 and was terminated without following Section 25F. The Labour Court found he worked for 240 days in a calendar year and ordered reinstatement without back wages. The Single Judge set aside the order. The Division Bench held that the Labour Court's finding of 240 days was based on evidence and not perverse, and the termination without compliance with Section 25F was illegal. The appeal was allowed, reinstating the Labour Court's order. (Paras 1-6) B) Industrial Disputes - Burden of Proof - Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The burden is on the workman to prove that he worked for 240 days in a calendar year. The appellant produced muster rolls and oral evidence, which the Labour Court accepted. The Division Bench held that the Single Judge erred in re-appreciating evidence and substituting his own finding. (Paras 4-5) C) Industrial Disputes - Reinstatement - Section 11A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The Labour Court has discretion to grant reinstatement with or without back wages. The Division Bench upheld the Labour Court's order of reinstatement without back wages, noting the long gap since termination and the workman's lack of employment. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Single Judge erred in setting aside the Labour Court's order of reinstatement on the ground that the appellant had not worked for 240 days in a calendar year, and whether the appellant was entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service.
Final Decision
The Letters Patent Appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 2579 of 2000 is set aside. The order of the Labour Court, Ahmednagar in Reference IDA No. 128 of 1992 is restored. The appellant is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service but without back wages.
Law Points
- Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947 requires compliance before retrenchment of workman who has worked for 240 days in a calendar year
- Burden of proof on workman to show continuous service of 240 days
- Reinstatement without back wages is appropriate when workman has not worked for long period
