The award of compensation instead of reinstatement based on the violation of Sec.25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act is unjustified, as the termination lacked proper evidentiary support.

JUDGMENT :

RAJENDRA M. SAREEN, J.

1. Heard Mr. Hemang Shah, advocate on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Akash Chhaya, learned Assistant Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents.

2. The original workman, aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court dated 26.10.2018 by which a lump-sum compensation of Rs.54,000/- has been awarded, has approached this Court claiming that the award be quashed and set aside and further direction be issued to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with full backwages, continuity of service and all consequential benefits.

3. Facts in brief would indicate that the petitioner was engaged as a ‘Peon cum Watchman’ under the respondents. He joined his services on 21.01.2000. The petitioner would discharge his duty as a peon from 8 am to 2 pm and as watchman from 8 pm to 8 am. On his services being discontinued, apparently due to the policy of outsourcing with effect from 02.05.2006, he approached the Labour Court.

3.1 The Labour Court, based on the terms of reference opined that the interest of justice would be served if compensation is awarded to the petitioner.

3.2 Perusal of the award of the Labour Court would indicate that against the termination of the year 2006, the reference was raised within time on 22.10.2007. After the Statement of Claim was filed by the petitioner, a written statement too was filed by the respondent- employer at Exh.27. The award was decided ex-parte in absence of the employer by the order dated 23.02.2012, wherein, the Labour Court directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with 25% backwages.

3.3 In Miscellaneous Application No. 17 of 2012 filed in the reference case, namely, Case No. 116 of 2007, the Labour Court set aside the ex-parte award on 18.02.2014 with a direction to decide the issue afresh. It is in these circumstances, that the reference was re-numbered as Reference (T) No. 43 of 2014.

4.1 Mr. Hemang Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner, would assail the award of granting compensation on the ground that the respondents in failing to produce any evidence could not prove that the termination of the petitioner was bad. In fact, the findings of the Labour Court would indicate that the Labour Court found that the petitioner had worked continuously for a period of 240 days for more than six years from 21.01.2000 to 02.05.2006 when he was terminated from his services. Perusal of the award of the Labour Court would indicate that in support of the averments made in the Statement of Claim, the workman had been examined at Exh.11. It was his case before the Labour Court that he had worked for 240 days in each year of service continuously. Attendance Registers were produced for the period from 21.01.2000 April 2006. On going through such registers, the Labour Court had found that the petitioner-workman had worked continuously for over a period of time satisfying the prerequisite of completing 240 days in each year of service as provided under Sec.25(F) of the Act.

4.2. Mr. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner has also relied upon the oral judgment dated 23.08.2022 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 1793 of 2019 wherein under similar facts and circumstances as canvassed in the present petition, this Court had modified the award passed by the Labour Court, Godhra in Reference (T) No. 42 of 2006 and directed reinstatement without backwages. Moreover, the said judgment passed by this Court has not been challenged by the concerned authority.

5. Mr. Akash Chhaya, learned AGP for the State would also urge the Court that the benefit of continuity in service cann