ORAL ORDER

1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is impugning the award dated 01.04.2023 whereby the learned Labour Court, Godhra has held the retrenchment of the respondent workman to be illegal and has further directed reinstatement without any back wages or benefits.

2. Though served, the sole respondent has neither appeared in person nor has entered appearance through any advocate.

3. Mr. Shivam Dixit, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent was working as Chokidar with the petitioner since 20.06.2001 on monthly wage of Rs.3,100/-. That the respondent came to be orally terminated in August-2013. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner herein have produced evidence on record that the respondent had worked for only 216 days in the preceeding year and therefore, since he had not worked for 240 days as per the requirement of law, there was no violation of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [“ID Act” for short] and that the findings rendered by the learned Labour Court was bad in law and the reinstatement granted by the impugned award ought to be set aside. He further states that the learned Labour Court has further erred in holding that the respondent was in continuous service as defined under Section 25(B) of the ID Act while erroneously coming to the conclusion that the termination of the respondent amounts to violation of Section 25(F) of the ID Act. In support of his contention, learned Assistant Government Pleader has relied upon the judgment dated 19.04.2018 in Civil Appeal No.3803 of 2018 whereby the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the requirement of completion of 240 days in immediate proceeding year from the date of dismissal was mandatory to obtain the benefits of provisions of Section 25(F) of the ID Act. He, therefore, submits that the impugned award be quashed and set aside.

4. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for the petitioner, perused the documents and considered the submissions.

5. It is required to be noted that the respondent was working as a Chokidar with the petitioner from 20.06.2001 on monthly wages till his oral termination in August-2013 without issuing any notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation. The respondent has worked for almost 12 years with the petitioner. The respondent thereafter raised a dispute with the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Godhra who by communication dated 30.05.2015 made a reference to the learned Labour Court, Godhra being Reference (T) No.85 of 2015. The parties have led oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their case. After perusing the evidence on record, the learned Labour Court has held that it has been duly proved that the respondent was working with the petitioner. That the service of the respondent has been orally terminated by the petitioner. That the respondent has rendered continuous service in terms of the provisions of Section 25(F) of the ID Act. Upon appreciation of evidence, the learned Labour Court has held that in the preceeding 2 years, the respondent workman had worked for 258 days in 2011-2012 and further for a period of 216 days till his oral termination as per the records produced by the petitioner. Therefore, the learned Labour Court has, relying upon the provisions of Section 25(B)(1) of the ID Act, held that the service of the respondent was continuous.

6. Mr. Shivam Dixit, learned Assistant Government Pleader has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court dated 16.04.2018 in Civil Appeal No.3803 of 2018. However, the said judgment is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case since in the said case, the respondent workman had worked for 195 days and 19.5 days in the last 2 preceeding years and therefore, the Hon’ble Apex Court had held that the provisions of Section 25(F) of the ID Act were not applicable in the said case. However, in the present case, it cannot be overlooked that the