The main legal point established in the judgment is that the termination of workmen must comply with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, and violations of Sections 25G and 25H can lead to reinstatement of the workmen.

ORDER :

A.J. Desai, J.

1. By way of present appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellant herein – original petitioner has challenged an oral order dated 04.04.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the captioned writ petitions filed by the present appellant challenging the judgment and award dated 11.04.2017 by which the learned Labour Court, Junagadh directed the appellant herein to reinstate the workmen – respondents herein without back-wages.

2. The short facts emerging from the record of the case are as follows:-

2.1 That the appellant, which is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business / manufacture of viscose filament yarn, appointed the respondents – workmen during 1995 to 2000 as temporary employee, however without following due process, services of respondents – workmen were terminated in the year 2001. Therefore, references were raised by the workmen which were allowed on the ground that there is a breach of sections 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

2.2 The said decision of the learned Labour Court was challenged by the appellant herein by way of filing captioned writ petitions, which came to be dismissed by the impugned oral order dated 04.04.2022.

Hence, present Letters Patent Appeals.

3. Learned advocate Ms. Khushbu Chhaya appearing for the appellant would submit that the learned Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge committed error in entertaining the case of the workmen since the reference was raised after a period of 4 to 5 years. Learned advocate Ms. Chhaya would further submit that the services of the workmen came to be terminated in the year 2001 i.e. before 21 years and therefore, case of lump sum compensation ought to have been considered. She, therefore, would submit that present appeals be allowed.

4. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. T.R. Mishra appearing for the respondents – workmen has vehemently opposed the present appeals and has supported the order passed by the learned Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. He would submit that the learned Single Judge, after considering the case in detail and relying upon the findings of the learned Labour Court, has rightly come to the conclusion that the services of the workmen were illegally terminated. He would submit that the workmen are not at fault since the case which was filed at the instance of the appellant in the year 2006 came to be finally disposed of by the learned Labour Court only in the year 2017. He would submit that this cannot be the ground for granting lump sum compensation to the workmen. In support of his submission, learned advocate Mr. Mishra has relied upon a recent decision dated 23.09.2022 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jeetubha Khansangji Jadeja vs. Kutchh District Panchayat rendered in Civil Appeal No.6890/2022 and has requested to dismiss the present appeals.

5. We have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the order passed by the learned Labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge after considering the record of the case has observed in paragraph Nos.7 to 14 as under :

“7. From the evidence on record of the workman, it appears that the Labour Court has held according to the statement of the workman of this case, the employer-company has made his appointment on 12/09/1995. Thereafter, he was ordered to perform his duty as conner cum reeler in the Textile Department. Moreover, he has performed duty continuously from 12/09/1995 to 15/12001. The employer-company has retrenched him from service on 15/11/2001. While retrenching him, the respondent has not paid him notice, notice pay or unemployment compensation. In this case, considering the aforesaid statement of the applicant, it has been stated that continuous duty has been performed from 12/09/1995 to 15/11/2001 and considering Sect