Termination of daily-wage employees lacks grounds for immediate reinstatement; instead, procedural violations prompt compensation under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.

JUDGMENT :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. The present Letters Patent Appeals have been filed by the appellant – Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service (hereinafter referred to as “the appellant – AMTS”) under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1860. These appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 24.02.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petitions filed by the appellant – AMTS challenging the award dated 29.06.2010 passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No.1086 of 2002, came to be rejected.

2. By the aforesaid award, the Labour Court partly allowed the reference and directed the appellant – AMTS to pay to the respondent–employees compensation in accordance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short “the I.D. Act”) for each year of service rendered by them.

3. Aggrieved by the said award, both the appellant – AMTS as well as the respondent–employees preferred writ petitions being Special Civil Application Nos.5680 of 2011, 9202 of 2011, 5849 of 2011 and 5863 of 2011. The learned Single Judge, by a common judgment, allowed the writ petitions filed by the respondent–workmen and rejected the writ petition filed by the appellant – AMTS. The learned Single Judge has further modified the award of the Labour Court and directed reinstatement of the respondent–workmen with 50% back wages and all consequential benefits.

4. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid directions, the appellant – AMTS has preferred the present appeals.

5. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.H.S. Munshaw, appearing for the appellant – AMTS, has invited the attention of this Court to the interim order dated 13.07.2017 passed by the Coordinate Bench in Civil Application No.10820 of 2016 filed in the present Letters Patent Appeals. It is submitted that at the relevant point of time, the appellant – AMTS had expressed its willingness to pay a lump-sum compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to each of the respondent–workmen towards full and final settlement of the dispute. However, as the respondent– workmen did not agree to such settlement, the said amount was ordered to be deposited before the Registry of this Court, and subsequently, the workmen and their legal heirs have withdrawn the same.

6. Learned advocate Mr. H. S. Munshaw, appearing for the appellant – AMTS, has further submitted that the learned Single Judge committed an error in directing the reinstatement of the respondent–employees on the ground that they had been terminated with a view to deny them the benefits of regularization. It is submitted that the Reference (IT) No.137 of 2001, wherein the workmen similarly situated to the respondent–workmen had claimed regularization upon completion of 5 years and 900 days of service, has been rejected by the Labour Court.

7. It is further pointed out that a specific contention was raised both before the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge that the appellant – AMTS was not in a position to continue employing the daily wagers, such as the respondent– workmen, who were engaged as Watchmen/Security Officers. This was on account of the fact that several buses were withdrawn from service and even regularly appointed employees were rendered idle for want of work.

8. Learned advocate Mr.Munshaw, has also drawn attention to the fact that in similar circumstances, daily-rated Drivers and Conductors had initiated proceedings for regularization. The Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad, by award dated 24.12.2002 passed in Reference (IT) No.6802 of 2003 and allied matters, had directed regularization of such workmen upon completion of 5 years and 900 days of service. However, this Court, vid