Continuous service under the Industrial Disputes Act requires either uninterrupted service for one year or 240 days worked in the preceding twelve months; failure to establish either ground results in ineligibility for reinstatement.

JUDGMENT :

M.K. THAKKER, J.

1. Since the issue raised in these petitions are similar, they are being decided by a common judgment. The facts of Special Civil Application No.2973 of 2020 of 2021 are taken for the purpose of adjudication.

2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP Mr.Davda waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent-State.

3. The present petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award passed by the learned Labour Court, Godhra, dated 08.03.2019, whereby the reference filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner failed to establish continuity of service.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that he was engaged by the respondent as a daily wager from 16.12.1992 in the Irrigation Patrolling Department and had been serving continuously at different sites. During the course of his employment, the petitioner was not provided muster rolls, attendance registers, weekly muster sheets, etc. Despite having completed 240 days of service, he was terminated on 15.06.1997 without following the due procedure prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the ID Act'). Challenging the said termination, the petitioner filed Reference (T) No. 47 of 2000, seeking reinstatement with all consequential benefits. The respondent appeared in the proceedings and filed a written statement, contending that the petitioner had not completed 240 days in any calendar year and had, in fact, abandoned the service on his own, and therefore, was not entitled to the relief sought before the learned Labour Court. The learned Labour Court, after considering the evidence adduced by both parties, dismissed the reference, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition before this Court.

5. Heard learned advocate Mr. Dipak Dave for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Aditya Davda for the respondent state.

6. Learned advocate Mr. Dave submits that, as per the evidence adduced by the respondent, the petitioner had rendered 11 days of service in the year 1992, 217 days in 1993, 137 days in 1994, 214 days in 1995, 139 days in 1996, and 90 days in 1997. It is contended that the petitioner fulfilled the requirement under Section 25(B) (1) of the ID Act. Therefore, even if the petitioner did not complete 240 days in the immediately preceding year, his case ought to have been examined in light of Section 25(B)(1) of the ID Act, for which there is no mandatory condition of continuous service in the immediately preceding year. However, the learned Labour Court has erroneously relied on Section 25(B)(2) of the ID Act and dismissed the reference. Learned advocate Mr.Dave submits that that the suggestion made by the respondent that the petitioner had voluntarily stopped reporting to work was inadvertently accepted by the petitioner during cross-examination. It is submitted that the learned Labour Court has failed to consider the violation of Sections 25(G) and 25(H) of the ID Act while adjudicating the reference. Learning advocate Mr. Dave submits the production application, which had been allowed in favour of the petitioner, was not fully complied with by the respondent. Instead, only selective documents were produced. Despite this, the learned Labour Court laid emphasis on the evidence of the petitioner who is a rustic person. Learned advocate Mr.Dave submits that in the absence of work being offered by the respondent, it cannot be presumed that the petitioner did not work continuously. The learned Labour Court, instead of appreciating the entirety of Section 25(B) o