Cessation of work due to an employer’s inability to provide work does not constitute an interruption in service for the purpose of defining continuous employment. If a workman is not provided work through no fault of their own, that period counts toward continuous service.

ORAL ORDER

1. By the present Writ Petition, the petitioner is impugning the award dated 17.05.2022 passed by the learned Labour Court, Ahmedabad, whereby the respondent workman has been reinstated with continuity in service, but without any back-wages.

2. The learned AGP Ms. Agneya Mankad appearing for the petitioner submits that in the present case, the respondent workman has claimed that he has been working with the petitioner department since the year 2004. She submits that as per the muster-roll and evidence produced on record, the respondent workman has worked as daily wage labourer from 01.09.2009. She submits that the petitioner has produced all the available material on record to show that the respondent workman has worked for more than 240 days only in the year 2009 and the year 2010. Thereafter, the respondent workman has not worked for 240 days in any year. She submits that the respondent workman has not produced any documentary evidence in support of his case that he has worked from the year 2004 till the year 2014, i.e. for a period of 10 years. She submits that since the respondent workman has not worked for 240 days in the preceding year, he is not entitled to reinstatement with continuity in service. The learned AGP submits that the respondent workman has urged that he was working with the petitioner department since the year 2004 and was terminated from service without following due procedure of law in violation of Section 25-B (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. She submits that the petitioner has produced the documentary evidence in the nature of muster-roll from the year 2004 till the year 2014. She submits that if one peruses the attendance sheet, it is clearly seen that the respondent workman has worked for 257 days in the year 2009, 286 days in the year 2010, 26 days in the year 2011, 76 days in the year 2012 and 103 days in the year 2013. Thereafter, the petitioner has not worked in the rest of the years. She submits that despite such evidence produced on record, the learned Labour Court has held that the termination was illegal. She submits that the present Special Civil Application be allowed and the impugned award be set aside.

3. Per contra, the learned counsel Mr. U. T. Mishra appearing for the respondent workman submits that if the attendance sheet as produced by the petitioner is relied upon, then the respondent workman has worked for more than 240 days in the year 2009 and the year 2010. Thereafter, 240 days work could not be completed till his oral termination because the respondent authority was not granting work to him. The learned counsel submits that in such cases, the provisions of Section 25(B)(1) come into play and that the respondent workman has to be held in continuous service because he could not complete 240 days due to the fault of the employer and not because of his own fault. The learned counsel Mr. Mishra relies upon the judgment in the case of Zonal Manager, State Bank of India and anr. vs. Modi Rajeshkumar Shantilal reported in 2018(3) GLR 2326. The learned counsel further submits that the similarly placed daily wage workers were also terminated by the petitioner and the learned Labour Court has reinstated them back in service. He submits that in all these cases, the State Government preferred the Special Civil Applications seeking to set aside the said award and this Court has dismissed the said writ petitions. The learned counsel submits that in the present case, no interference is called for since the learned Labour Court has rightly applied the principles of law under the Industrial Disputes Act and more particula