Termination without following due procedure under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act mandates reinstatement and continuity of service.

ORDER :

ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATIONS

1. Heard Ms. Roshni Patel, learned AGP and Mr. J.A. Adeshara, learned advocate for the respondent-workmen.

2. Mr. Adeshara, learned advocate for the respondents-workmen would rely on an order of the co-ordinate bench of this court where the civil applications for condonation of delay were rejected on the ground that though the legal department had opined positively not to file an appeal and when the file went to the Chief Minister’s Office, the decision was overturned and an opinion was given by the Chief Minister’s office to file appeals in the said applications. However, we are not dealing with the said submission in light of the fact that since in identical cases, the appeals were admitted, we have dismissed them by separate order of even date.

3. Accordingly, delay is hereby condoned. Applications are accordingly allowed.

ORDER IN LETTERS PATENT APPEALS

1. With the consent of learned AGP and learned advocate for the respondents – workmen, the appeals are taken up for hearing today.

2. These appeals arise out of the order dated 13.03.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in the respective captioned petitions by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the petitions of the State confirming the awards passed by the Labour Court which were impugned in the respective writ petitions granting reinstatement with continuity of service and 25% backwages.

3. The facts leading to filing of the present appeals are that the respondent workmen were working as Class IV employees for more than 12 years and were terminated on 27.03.2006. Aggrieved, all the respondent workmen preferred references before the Labour Court at Nadiad. The Labour Court held that there was violation of Section 25F, G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act and directed the reinstatement of the respondent workmen on their original posts with continuity in service and 25% back wages for the interregnum period.

4. Ms. Roshni Patel, learned AGP appearing for the appellant State would submit that the Labour Court committed an error in granting reinstatement with 25% backwages and also granting continuity of service. She submitted that the respondent workmen after being terminated were working at different places and therefore the Labour Court ought not to have granted backwages.

5. Mr. Adeshara, learned advocate appearing for the respondents workmen supported the impugned award and the order of the learned Single Judge. He has stated that the amount of 25% backwages is already paid to the respondents.

6. Having heard learned advocates for both the sides, in light of the fact that identical appeals have been dismissed by this court today which read as below, these appeals are also required to be dismissed on the same terms:

“1. These appeals arise out of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in the respective captioned petitions by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the respective petitions of the State confirming the awards passed by the Labour Court which were impugned in the respective writ petitions.

2. Since the facts in these appeals are common, we shall take into consideration facts of Letters Patent Appeal No. 177 of 2022 for the sake of convenience.

2.1 Before the Labour Court, it was the case of the respondent workman that he was working in the establishment of the appellant State since November 1998 as Peon on a monthly salary of Rs. 1350/-. His service was terminated on and from 28.02.2006. It was his case that he had worked for over ten years in the establishment.

2.2 The contention of the appellant State was that the workman was working as a daily wager; that he had not worked for 240 days of service in each year; he was not entitled to reinstatement and backwages. The labour Court by the impugned award granted reinstatement with continuity of service.

3. Ms. Roshni Patel, learned AGP appearing for the appellant State would submit that the Labour Court committed an error in granting reinstatement without backwages and also