The termination of workmen without following proper procedure under the Industrial Disputes Act constitutes a violation warranting reinstatement.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

The present intra Court appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 03.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.39006/2015.

2. The 56 workmen claiming to have worked in the respondent-University have raised the industrial dispute alleging that their services came to be terminated by the respondent-University in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (for short 'the ID Act'). The Government of Karnataka in exercise of its power under Section 10(1)(c) of the ID Act had made a reference to the Labour Court. The Labour Court on completion of the pleadings framed the following issues for determination.

"i. Whether the First Party Workmen prove that the Second Party is an Industry u/s 2(j) of the I.D.Act?

ii. Whether the First Party workmen prove that they have been illegally terminated from service o 22.02.2010?

iii. Whether the First Party workmen are entitled to the reliefs?

iv. What order or Award?"

3. Before the Labour Court, the 56 workmen were examined and documents Exhibits-W1 to W87 were marked in support of their case. On behalf of the Management, one witness (MW.1) was examined and Exhibits M1 to M18 were marked. The claims of the 56 workmen were examined. The Tribunal has stated that 56 workmen had been working continuously with the respondent-University on daily wage basis till 22.02.2010. However, all of 56 workmen had put in more than 240 days in a calendar year before their services were abruptly terminated on 22.02.2010. There was no appointment letter issued in favour of any of the workmen and no advertisement was published in the newspaper inviting applications for recruitment.

4. Furthermore, the workmen did not possess copies of any applications seeking appointment filed before the Management or the University nor did they know whether the Management or the University maintained any attendance registers for the daily wagers. However, despite this evidence, the Labour Court held that the contents of the Exhibits W1 to W87 demonstrated that the 56 workmen were working as daily wagers in the respondent-University. Some of the workmen had also submitted their experience certificates at Ex.W1 to Ex.W4, 12, 51, 52, 56 to 58, 65 to 68, 70, 71, 73 and 74. However, it is clear from these documents that not all the 56 workmen in whose favour the award was passed produced the experience certificate. Nonetheless, based on the evidence adduced by the workmen, the Labour Court concluded that 56 workmen worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year in the employment of the respondent-University and they would fall within the ambit of Section 2(s) of the ID Act as 'workmen'.

5. The Labour Court, therefore, concluded that the termination of the employment of 56 workmen was in violation of Section 25-F of the ID Act. The Labour Court, vide award dated 02.05.2015 passed in Reference No.20/2013, directed the University to reinstate 56 workmen within two months from the date of the award, however, the workmen would not be entitled for backwages.

6. The aforesaid award came to be challenged by the University in W.P. No.39006/2015. The learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment and order dated 03.02.2024 considering the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent-University that 24 workmen had worked with University, directed the University to provide employment to 24 workmen who according to the stand of the University had worked in the University. However, in respect of the other 32 workmen, the learned Single Judge directed that it would be open for them to take appropriate proceedings for appointment.

7. The learned Single Judge has not set aside the award in respect of the 32 workmen, therefore, we make it clear that they