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.

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.