1. Termination of services — Reference under Section 10, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Dispute regarding illegal retrenchment and entitlement to reinstatement. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 2377
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.
State Of Gujarat & Anr. - Appellants
Vs.
Munta Aalamkhan Nurbeg - Respondent
Civil Appeal No.7974 of 2009
Decided on : 02-05-2019
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Kabir Hathi, Adv., Ms. Jesal Wahi, Adv., Ms. Hemantika Wahi, AOR
For the Respondent: Dr. J. P. Dhanda, Ms. Raj Rani Dhanda, Adv., Mr. Vineet Dhanda, Adv., Mr. N.A.Usmani, Adv., Mr. Gopi Chand, Adv.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Kabir Hathi, Adv., Ms. Jesal Wahi, Adv., Ms. Hemantika Wahi, AOR
For the Respondent: Dr. J. P. Dhanda, Ms. Raj Rani Dhanda, Adv., Mr. Vineet Dhanda, Adv., Mr. N.A.Usmani, Adv., Mr. Gopi Chand, Adv.
Important Points
Continuous work for more than 240 days entitles an employee to protection under labour laws, and failure to participate in proceedings can lead to decisions being based on the opposing party's evidence.
Subject
Labour Law - Termination of Services
Act Referred
Headnote
Labour Laws - Termination of Services - Illegal Retrenchment
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a workman, had his services terminated by the State. The Labour Court found in favor of the respondent, directing reinstatement and payment of back wages. The State appealed to the High Court, which upheld the Labour Court's decision.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found no merit in the State's appeal, upholding the Labour Court's decision based on the respondent's continuous work for more than 240 days and the State's failure to participate in the proceedings.
Issues: Termination of services, protection of labour laws, ex-parte proceedings
Ratio Decidendi: Continuous work for more than 240 days entitled the respondent to protection under labour laws. State's failure to participate in the proceedings led to the decision being based on the respondent's evidence.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Labour Court's decision in favor of the respondent.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. State challenged the Labour Court's award of reinstatement and back wages, contesting the finding of illegal retrenchment. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. Finding of fact regarding continuous service for 240 days is not interfered with; ex-parte award is justified when the employer fails to contest proceedings. (Para 7 , 8 )
4. Findings of fact regarding continuous service are binding unless contested, and ex-parte awards based on uncontested evidence are valid. (Para 7 , 8 )
5. Appeal dismissed; High Court order and Labour Court award upheld. (Para 6 , 9 )
6. Does a finding of fact regarding the number of days worked by a workman warrant interference by a higher court?
No, the court held that the finding that a respondent worked for more than 240 days is a finding of fact and it is not inclined to interfere with such a finding. (Para 7 )
7. What is the legal effect of an employer remaining ex-parte in labour court proceedings?
If an employer fails to participate in the proceedings or provide evidence and defense, the Labour Court may proceed ex-parte and render an award based on the evidence adduced by the workman. (Para 7 , 8 )
8. When is a termination of service considered an illegal retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act?
Termination is considered illegal retrenchment when the workman has worked for more than 240 days continuously in one calendar year and the due procedure prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act is not followed. (Para 3 , 7 )
ORDER :
1. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 10th July, 2007 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Civil Application No.388/1999 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State-appellants herein.
2. The respondent was a workman. He was working in one store department of the State. His services were terminated by the State-appellants herein. This led to making of a Reference by the State under Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court at Gandhidham being LCR No.405/1996.
3. The State remained ex-parte and did not contest it. The Labour Court by award dated 30th April, 1998 answered Reference against the State and in favour of the respondent (workman). The Labour Court on the basis of evidence adduced by the respondent (workman) held that the respondent worked for more than 240 days continuously in one calendar year, therefore, he was entitled to the protection of labour laws. It was held that respondent’s services were terminated without following the due procedure prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act and hence it was held to be a case of an illegal retrenchment. The Labour Court accordingly directed reinstatement of the respondent with payment of 70% of the back wages payable to him by the appellant.
4. Being aggrieved, the State (appellants) herein filed Special Civil Application before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad.
5. By the impugned order, the High Court (Single Judge) dismissed the Special Civil Application and upheld the award passed by the Labour Court which has given rise to filing of this appeal by the State.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. Having perused, we find no merit in this appeal.
7. In our opinion, the Labour Court and the High Court were justified in holding that the respondent has worked for more than 240 days and therefore was entitled for the protection of the labour laws. This being finding of fact, we are not inclined to interfere. Moreover, the State having failed to participate in the proceedings before the Labour Court, the Labour Court had no option but to proceed ex-parte against the State and rendered the award on the basis of evidence adduced by the respondent.
8. In the absence of any evidence adduced by the State before the Labour Court in support of their case and in the absence of any defense taken, no fault can be noticed in the award of the Labour Court which was rightly upheld by the High Court by the impugned order.
9. To conclude, we find no merit in this appeal. The appeal therefore fails and is accordingly dismissed.
