The court established that back wages and continuity of service are not automatically granted upon finding an illegal termination, allowing for monetary compensation instead based on relevant factors.

ORDER :

(Pranav Trivedi, J.)

1. The present Letters Patent Appeals under clause 15 of the Letters Patent assails the correctness and validity of the common judgment and order of the learned Single Judge passed in group of matters dated 05.04.2018. Since the issue involved in all the appeals is common, we took up all the Letters Patent Appeals together for adjudication. For considering the issue involved, the factual matrix of Letters Patent Appeal No. 916 of 2023 in Special Civil Application No. 21746 of 2017 is discussed

2. The prayer as prayed in the petition, preferred by the appellants – original petitioners was to issue direction to quash and set aside the award dated 30.09.2015 passed by the labour court, Nadiad in Reference (LCN) No. 17 of 2003, below Exhibit-36. It was also further prayed to direct the respondents to pay full back wages to the petitioners till the date of death of the concerned workman as if he was continuously in service. The learned Single Judge after considering the arguments made on behalf of the respective parties, dismissed the petitions confirming the award passed by the labour court and directed that the amount which was required to be paid to the respective petitioners may be paid within a reasonable period preferably within a a period of three months. Such order passed by the learned Single Judge is challenged in the present appeal.

3. The factual matrix leading to filing of the petition is that the deceased workman was working as a ‘Watchman’ since 01.01.1984. The services of the workman concerned came to be terminated by the respondents with effect from 14.10.1999. It was the case of the petitioner that while terminating the service, the principles enunciated under the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) had not taken place. Therefore, the grievance and dispute was raised by the petitioner – deceased workman, which culminated into Reference (LCN) No. 17 of 2023. Pursuant to the statement of claim being filed, written statement was filed. The learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Nadiad after granting an opportunity to both the sides to adduce evidence and after following due procedure of law disposed of the reference by giving lump sum compensation instead of granting relief of reinstatement and back wages. Further direction was also given to pay such lump sum compensation within a period of 60 days from the publication of the award, failing which, it will carry interest @ 9% per annum. The said award was challenged before the learned Single Judge by filing writ petition, which was dismissed with an observation that the award passed by the labour court was just and proper and the lump sum compensation awarded by the labour court was the proper relief for the family of the deceased workman, instead of back wages and continuity in service. The said directions of the learned Single Judge are assailed in the appeal. All the appeals have similar background and only the number of years of service vary. All the workmen have passed away and the legal heirs of the deceased workmen have prayed for back wages and continuity.

4. We have heard learned advocate Mr. Aakash Modi for Mr. Prabhakar Upadhyay, learned advocate for the appellants and Mr. Parth Bhatt, learned advocate appearing for the respondents.

5. It has been submitted by learned advocate Mr. Modi that the services of the deceased workmen were orally terminated without following due procedure as contemplated under the provisions of Section 25F of the Act. Therefore, the appellants were