Point of Law: Labour Law - Reinstatement in services – It is trite law that when termination is found to be illegal because of non-payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily required under S. 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned award dated 05.03.2012 passed by the Labour Court, Amreli in Reference (L.C.A.) No.8 of 2007 whereby instead of granting reinstatement with continuity of service with back wages, the Labour Court has granted lump sum amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, the petitioner – workman has preferred this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs.

[A] This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an order, writ in the nature of mandamus and/or certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the impugned award passed by the Labour Court, denying reinstatement in services with all consequential benefits, as illegal, unjust, arbitrary and be pleased to quash and set aside the same and direct respondents to reinstate workman in services with all consequential benefits.

[B] Be pleased to declare that termination of services of workman was illegal and therefore in light of the judgment of Hon. Supreme Court, respondents be directed to reinstate the petitioner in services.

[C] Pending admission and final disposal of this petition be pleased to direct respondents to take petitioner in services forthwith.

[D] Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice together with cost.

2. It is contention of the petitioner is that his service came to be terminated on 30.10.2004 without following mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter be referred to as the “ID Act”) and, therefore the reference was made before the Labour Court. It is also the contention of the petitioner that instead of granting reinstatement, the Labour Court has committed serious error of facts and law and in granting Rs.1,50,000/-. It is also contended by the petitioner that the award passed by the Labour Court is ex facie, unjust, arbitrary, illegal and it is required to be quashed and set aside by granting reinstatement with full back wages to him. While referring to the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of M/s.Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd Vs. Employees of M/s.Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd, AIR 1979 SC 75, Gammon India Limited Vs.Niranjan Dass, AIR 1984 SC 500, Harjindersing Vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, (2010) 3 SCC 192, State of Bombay and others Vs. Hotel Mazdoor Sabha, AIR 1960 SC 670, it is contended by the petitioner that the Labour Court has not considered the legal position as settled by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions and the Labour Court has committed error of facts and law in granting the prayer of reinstatement with full back wages. It is further contended by the petitioner that last salary drawn by the workman in the year 2004 was Rs.2200/- and therefore he is entitled to get pay as if in 2012. It is also contended by the petitioner that the other employees who worked with the petitioner were granted benefits of the award on the basis of government resolution dated 17.10.1988 and they are getting monthly salary of Rs.15000/- and even minimum wages for skilled category is Rs.205/- per day. On all these grounds, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned award which includes reinstatement with continuity of service with all consequential benefits.

3. Heard Ms.Reema Kamani, learned advocate for Mr.P. H. Pathak, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Soaham Joshi, learned AGP for the respondents at length through video conferencing.

4. Ms.Reema Kamani, learned advocate for Mr.P. H. Pathak, learned advocate for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the service of the workman was for more than five years and there is clear cut observation of the Labour Court that there is a breach of Section 25F of the ID Act. According to her submissions, the Labour Court ought to have granted prayer for reinstatement with continuity of service. She has submitted that though no issue regarding the appointment of the petitioner without followin