Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Guj) 1100

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
N.V.ANJARIA, PRANAV TRIVEDI, JJ.
Dave Girishbhai Vallabhbhai – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Gujarat – Respondents
R/Letters Patent Appeal No.1482 of 2018 In R/Special Civil Application No.16565 of 2015 With R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 1483 of 2018 In R/Special Civil Application No. 16750 of 2015
Decided on : 15-02-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : MR BJ TRIVEDI, MR JT TRIVEDI, MS JIGNASA B TRIVEDI
For the Respondent: MS SHRUTI DHRUVE

IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment emphasizes that relief of reinstatement and grant of backwages may not follow automatically, especially for daily-rated workmen, and the court may opt for lump-sum compensation instead.

Headnote:
Industrial Disputes Act - Termination of Workmen - Sections 25F, 25G, and 25H - Summary of Acts and Sections
Fact of the Case:
The workmen were terminated from their employment without following the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. They alleged breach of Section 25F, 25G, and 25H of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Labour Court partially allowed the reference, setting aside the termination and directing reinstatement with backwages. The Single Judge found the findings of the Labour Court regarding breach of Section 25F not justified and the evidence insufficient.
Issues: The main issue was the breach of mandatory provisions of Section 25F, 25G, and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the initial burden to show the continuous nature of service is on the workmen, and the onus of proof shifts to the employer for the details and proof thereof. The court also highlighted that relief of reinstatement and grant of backwages may not follow automatically, especially for daily-rated workmen.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals and held the workmen entitled to lumpsum compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

JUDGMENT :

N.V.ANJARIA, J.

Heard learned advocate Mr. B.J. Trivedi for the appellants workmen and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Shruti Dhruve for the respondent State, in both the appeals.

2. Both these Letters Patent Appeals preferred by the workmen arise from common judgment and order dated 10.04.2018 in respective Special Civil Applications passed by learned Single Judge. Since the impugned judgment is common and similar facts are involved and identical issues, both the appeals were heard together to be treated for final disposal by this judgment.

2.1 Before learned Single Judge, in Special Civil Application No.16565 of 2015, relatable to Letters Patent Appeal No. 1482 of 2018, what was under challenge was judgment and award dated 25.03.2015 passed by the Labour Court, Bhavnagar in Reference (LCB) No. 167 of 2005.

2.2 In the same way, it was the judgment and order of even date in Reference (LCB) No. 166 of 2005, which was challenged before learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 16750 of 2015, from which Letters Patent Appeal No. 1483 of 2018 has arisen.

2.3 In the respective judgment and awards, the Labour set aside the termination of the workman concerned and directed their reinstatement with continuity of service from the date of the termination till the reinstatement with 30% backwages.

3. Noticing the facts relating to Reference (LCB) No. 167 of 2005, which has culminated into Letters Patent Appeal No. 1482 of 2018, it was the case of the workman in his Statement of Claim (Exhibit 6) that he was in service since 6 years at Lakhanka Dam as Wireless Operator/Site Supervisor. It was the grievance that from 01.01.1996, without any reason, by oral order, the workman was driven out of service without following the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was the case that juniors were continued and new were employed in place of the petitioner. It was stated that at that time, the salary of the workman was Rs.600/- per month and he was engaged in the work for 8 hrs. The breach of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act was alleged.

4.1 In the second case, the grievance of the workman in his Statement of Claim (Exhibit 6) was on similar lines. He was engaged since last six years at the same Lakhanka Dam as Wireless Operator and his services came to be orally terminated with effect from 01.01.1994. He was also receiving Rs.600/- as monthly salary and in termination of his service, breach of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act was alleged.

3.2 In both the cases, the first employer filed his written statement (Exhibit 8) to deny the case of the workmen for reinstatement with backwages on the original post by contending that they were only rojamdars and it was denied that they were illegally terminated by oral order.

3.3 It was denied that any juniors were retained in service. It was submitted that there was no question of maintaining the seniority list. It was the case that since the workmen were only rojamdars, the question of any retrenchment compensation was not to arise. It was contended that it was only because of administrative exigencies that they were paid monthly salary, however, the status of the workmen was daily-rated only.

3.4 At the end of the appreciation of the evidence before it, the Labour Court in both the cases partially allowed the Reference as above.

4. Learned Single Judge took the view that the findings of the Labour Court regarding breach of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, was not justified inasmuch as they were not based on any cogent evidence and that there was only assertion by the workmen that they had worked continuously.

4.1 About breach of Section 25G and 25H of the Act, learned Single Judge took the view that said aspect was also not proved as it was not shown that the retainment of junior or fresh appointments of the workman was in the same category to apply the provisions of Section 25G and 25H of the Act. According