Termination of a contractual employee upon contract expiry does not qualify as retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act, thus not requiring reinstatement.

JUDGMENT :

M.K. THAKKER, J.

1. This petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award passed by learned labour court, Junagadh in Reference (L.C.J.) No.63 of 2015 dated 07.05.2019 whereby, learned reference court has awarded the lump sum compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards full and final settlement of the award.

2. The gist of the case is that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Sweeper on 08.10.2005 on a contractual basis, drawing monthly wages of Rs. 5,500/-. On 15.04.2015, as per the allegations made by the petitioner, his services were terminated without following the due procedure prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the “ID Act”). This termination was challenged before the learned Reference Court by filing a reference, wherein relief was sought for reinstatement along with consequential benefits. The learned Reference Court, upon concluding the proceedings in favour of the petitioner and holding that there was a breach of Sections 2 5(F), 25(G), and 25(H) of the ID Act, awarded lump sum compensation instead of ordering reinstatement. This award is now under challenge by the petitioner through the present petition.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Mithani for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr.Dhaval Parmar for the respondent.

4. Learned advocate Mr.Mithani submits that, indisputably, the petitioner had been serving with the respondent employer since 2005. Allegations were made against the petitioner regarding the recording of a video of lion cubs in a cage, which is prohibited under the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. Based on this allegation, the services of the petitioner were terminated. Learned advocate Mr.Mithani submits that though learned reference court did not believe the alleged misconduct on the ground that taking a video has not been proved through a CD as well as by producing the certificate required under section 65(B) of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT , and, though learned reference court has held in favour of the petitioner with regard to section 25(F), 25(G) and 25(H) of the ID Act has awarded lump sum compensation. Learned advocate Mr.Mithani submits that, as on date, the work is available, and as observed by the learned Reference Court, the said work has been carried out through other employees while the petitioner was not called back to work. Hence, there is a clear breach of Sections 25 (G) and 25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In the event of such a breach, the only appropriate remedy is reinstatement. However, the learned Reference Court has awarded only a meager amount as lump sum compensation. Learned advocate Mr.Mithani has relied on the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Rameshbhai Bhatibhai Pagi vs. Deputy Executive Engineer in Special Civil Application No. 1443 of 2022 wherein, in an identical situation, this Court has granted relief of reinstatement by holding that in breach of section 25(F), 25(G) and 25(H) of the ID Act, learned labour court ought to have awarded reinstatement rather than compensation. Learned advocate Mr.Mithani submits that without considering the above aspect, impugned award is passed, hence the same is required to be set aside and the petition deserves to be allowed.

5. On the other hand, learned AGP Mr.Parmar has submitted that the appointment of the present petitioner was purely contractual in nature, and the last contract, executed on 01.12.2014, came to an end on 31.03.2015. Learned AGP Mr.Parmar