Retrenchment is illegal if mandatory provisions of Sections 25F, 25G, and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, are violated, particularly when the workman proves completion of 240 days of service and the employer provides no evidence to contradict this claim.

ORAL ORDER

1. By the present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the award dated 29.12.2010 passed by the Labour Court, Kachchh at Bhuj, whereby the respondent no.1-workman has been granted reinstatement with continuity in service and 20% back-wages along with other admissible benefits.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent-workman has never completed 240 days as required under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“ID Act” for short).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since there is nothing on record to show that he has completed 240 days, the provisions of Section 25F of the ID Act are not attracted in the present case as the respondent-workman has to prove that he has completed 240 days in the preceding year. He submits that in the present case, if at all it is held that there is violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the ID Act, then instead of reinstatement lump sum compensation ought to have been granted.

4. Per contra, learned counsel Mr. N.D.Songara appearing for the respondent-workman submits that the case of the respondent-workman is that he was appointed on 01.01.1986 and was illegally retrenched on 17.02.2002 after a period of 16 years. He submits that before retrenchment, the respondent-workman was neither issued any notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation. It is further submitted that the respondent-workman has worked for more than 240 days prior to his retrenchment. He submits that after perusing the evidence on record, the learned Labour Court has granted reinstatement with continuity in service and 20% back-wages. He submits that the said award is just and proper. He submits that in the present case, the petitioners have reinstated the respondent-workman in the year 2012 and that the respondent-workman is working with the petitioners as on date. He submits that the impugned award not be interfered with.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Considered the submissions and perused the documents on record.

6. It is not in dispute that the respondent-workman is working as a Valveman with the petitioners since 01.01.1986 and that his service came to be terminated on 17.02.2002 after a period of 16 years. Aggrieved, the respondent-workman raised dispute, which came to be culminated into Reference (LCB) No.45 of 2002 in the Labour Court, Kachchh at Bhuj. The Labour Court has recorded that the petitioners have not examined any witness nor any documentary evidence is filed against the claim of the respondent-workman. The respondent-workman has led oral evidence. He has been cross-examined by the learned advocate for the petitioners, but his deposition is not controverted. From the evidence on record, the learned Labour Court has held that the respondent-workman has worked for more than 240 days during each and every calender year upto his retrenchment. Nothing contrary has been brought on record specifically in the present writ petition by way of any document to controvert this finding of the learned Labour Court that the respondent-workman has not worked for 240 days during his service period and in the year preceding his retrenchment. Further, the learned Labour Court has held that the petitioners have violated mandatory provisions of Sections 25F , 25G and 25H of the ID Act and Rule 81 of the Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957. Nothing material has been brought to the notice of this Court or any document is placed on record to controvert these findings. The reasoning given by the learned Labour Court is based on the evidence on record and by assigning cogent reasons. No interference is called for. The impugned award is just and proper. The