IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that reinstatement without back-wages can be justified based on the violation of Section 25(G) & 25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, supported by documentary evidence of the work performed.

JUDGMENT :

PRANAV TRIVEDI, J.

The present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is filed by the original petitioners assailing the correctness of the judgment and order dated 23.07.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.3729 of 2007.

2. The prayer made in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge by the appellants was to quash and set aside the impugned award dated 24.04.2006 passed by the Labour Court at Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No.1879 of 1995 holding that there is violation of the provisions of Section 25(G) & 25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as to "the Act") and therefore, the respondent was eligible for reinstatement without back-wages.

3. Learned Single Judge held that the petitioners have failed to lead any evidence with regard to the issue that respondent had not worked for 240 days or any other issues that were raised in the writ petition. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was pleased to hold that there can be no fault found with the reasoning and observations of the Labour Court and in view of the letter of the Deputy Municipal Commissioner, it clearly appears that the workman - respondent has completed work for 274 days with the Corporation and therefore, there is a breach of Section 25(G) & 25(H) of the Act. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the petition and uphold the impugned award dated 24.04.2006 passed by the Labour Court at Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No.1879 of 1995.

4. The background of the facts which has led to the writ petition before the Court is that the respondent was provided the work as a Daily Wage Compounder from 24.07.1990 till 06.06.1992. The respondent was terminated from his services with effect from 01.07.1992. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent approach the Labour Court by way of preferring a Reference. The said reference came to be numbered as Reference (LCA) No.1879 of 1995.

4.1 By way of an award dated 24.04.2006, it was adjudged that there is no breach with regard to Section 25(F) of the Act. However, there was a breach of Section 25(G) & 25(H) of the Act and therefore, the respondent was awarded reinstatement with continuity, but without back-wages. Therefore, the petitioners - Corporation preferred a writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 3729 of 2007. The learned Single Judge after hearing both the parties, rejected the petition of the petitioners. In such circumstances, the petitioners have preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.

5. We have heard learned advocate Mr. H. S. Munshaw for the appellants - original petitioners and learned advocate Mr. U. T. Mishra for learned advocate Mr. T. R. Mishra for the respondent.

6. It has been contended by learned advocate Mr. H. S. Munshaw for the appellants that the learned Single Judge as well as the Labour Court have failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent was offered work as a Badli Daily Wage Compounder depending upon the availability of the work in absence of regular and permanent post holder. The respondent was not selected after following due procedure of recruitment and was not holding any permanent and sanctioned post. Therefore, the respondent who had worked hardly for a few days in the year 1991-1992 purely on daily wage basis, would not be entitled to reinstatement with continuity on a para medical post after the gap of 29 years. Such post requires continuous and consistent experience and therefore, the respondent was not entitled or reinstatement.

6.1 It has further been contended by learned advocate Mr. Munshaw that the learned Single Judge erred in not appreciating that reinstatement with continuity after almost 30 years would result in to manifold administrative problems and cause a heavy monetary burden on public exchequer. Therefore, learned advocate Mr. Munshaw argued that this can be a case of compensation but not for reinstatement.

7. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. U. T. M