Point of Law: Breach of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act fell flat as none of petitioners-workmen could establish before Labour Court that they had completed 240 days of continuous service in the preceding year which was prerequisite in law to be entitled to get the relief.

ORDER :

N.V.ANJARIA, J.

Even though the respective judgments and orders in Special Civil Applications, impugned in all these nine Letters Patent Appeals were passed separately by learned Single Judge, these Letters Patent Appeals could be treated together for disposal by this common order as the facts are similar and the issues involved identical.

1.1 The petitions came to be dismissed by learned Single Judge by individual order dated 1.7.2019. They were filed by petitioners-workmen concerned seeking to challenge the judgment and award of the Labour Court, Palanpur in respective Reference cases which all were rejected by the Labour Court.

2. The rejection of the References was based on two grounds namely belated invocation of jurisdiction of the Labour Court and non-completion of continuous service of 240 days by the petitioner-workman. Consequently found not entitled to get the relief prayed for in the References.

3. All the appellants-petitioners-workmen worked as daily wagers under the respondent Trust. Noticing the facts from the first captioned Letters Patent Appeal No.1789 of 2019 referable to Special Civil Application No.9793 of 2019, the petitioner stated that he worked under respondent Trust since 1988 till 1.10.1998 when his services were orally terminated. He filed his Reference No.6 of 2012 before the Labour Court, Palanpur and prayed for reinstatement in service. In the statement of claim, the workman contended that his oral termination was illegal and that the same was in breach of provisions of Sections 25A, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Considered from the date of dismissal which was 1.10.1998, the Reference in this case was filed after more than thirteen years. The Labour Court dismissed the Reference by judgment and award dated 30.3.2018.

3.1 In the reply to the statement of claim, respondent-Trust inter alia contended that the petitioner was not registered as labourer with the respondent-Trust. No presence was maintained and any salary voucher was not issued. According to the stand, the engagement of the petitioner was through contractor and for all purposes, petitioner was employee of the contractor with responsibility of the contractor to make payment of salary etc. It was denied that the petitioner had rendered continuous service under the respondent-Trust as alleged. When the rejection of Reference was challenged before this Court by filing Special Civil Application, respondent-Trust filed its affidavit to reiterate the same stand which was taken before the Labour Court.

3.2 In all the cases, basic case in the Reference, stand and defence of the respondent and the submissions before the Labour Court and before this Court in the Special Civil Application were on similar lines. The basic details of all the appellants-petitioners are tabularised hereunder.