IMPORTANT POINT
Reinstatement is the default remedy for unlawful termination under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, emphasizing the necessity of due process.

JUDGMENT :

Bhargav D. Karia, J.

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. I.G. Joshi for learned advocate Mr. Vyom Shah for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Shrunjal Shah for the respondent State.

2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the Award and Order dated 29th May, 2014 passed in Reference (LCA) No.1 of 2012 by the Labour Court, Amreli.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was serving on the post of driver with respondent no.1 since 02.07.2009 and was paid Rs. 179.80 per day as wages.

4. The services of the petitioner came to be terminated orally on 18.06.2011. The petitioner therefore, issued demand notice dated 19.09.2011. As the respondents did not reply to the same, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication before the Labour Court, Amreli being Reference (LCA) NO. 1 of 2012.

5. The petitioner filed his statement of claim at Exh.6 stating that he was working with respondent no.1 since 02.07.2009 on the post of driver and was paid salary of Rs. 179.80 per day and was illegally terminated by oral order dated 18.06.2011 without any fault on his part. It was stated by the workman that juniors to him were continued and he was not called at the time of appointment though he had requisite educational qualification for any post in the establishment. It was stated by him that at the time of termination, he was not given any notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation and was terminated without giving him any opportunity of hearing. The petitioner workman had therefore, prayed for reinstatement on his original post with back wages and ancillary benefits and also prayed for cost of Rs.3000/- for the Reference.

6. Respondents filed their written statement at Exh.7 denying the facts stated by the petitioner workman. It was stated that the petitioner was appointed on temporary, ad-hoc basis and as a daily wager driver and was called as and when his services were required. It was further submitted that the petitioner was given wages as per piece rate given by the Labour Commissioner and whenever voucher was produced, he was paid the wages and as per the said rate, petitioner was paid Rs. 149.30 till the month of May 2011 and after the said period, rate was Rs.179.90. It was further submitted that nobody is appointed as driver in the establishment at present and hence there was no question of juniors being appointed for the said work.

7. Petitioner filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination vide Exh.27 and demand notice was produced at Exh.42 whereas affidavit of chief examination of Additional Assistant Engineer was produced at Exh.37.

8. The Labour Court, Amreli by the impugned Award granted compensation of Rs.50,000/- instead of reinstatement and back-wages and directed that the amount was to be paid by the respondents within a period of sixty days from the publication of award.

9. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

10. Learned advocate Mr. I.G. Joshi for the petitioner submitted that the impugned award is illegal, perverse and deserves to be quashed and set aside inasmuch as Labour Court having come to the conclusion that the petitioner has continuously worked for more than 240 days and employment was for more than one year, ought to have awarded reinstatement in lieu of compensation.

11. It was submitted that though the Labour Court came to the conclusion that respondents have violated the provisions contained in section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (For short “the Act”), Labour Court erred in not granting reinstatement to the petitioner in lieu of compensation. It was further submitted that the Labour Court ought to have appreciated that no opportunity of hearing as well as no disciplinary inquiry was conducted and petitioner was terminated orally and therefore, the impugned Award is required to be quashed and set aside.

12. On the other