Gujarat HC: Employer Must Prove 'Continued Ill-Health' Or Conduct Inquiry For Prolonged Absence; Reinstatement Without Back Wages Upheld Under Sec 2(oo)(c) IDA - 2025-06-17

Gujarat High Court Upholds Reinstatement of Workman , Rules Prolonged Absence Due to Illness Not Automatic Abandonment Without Inquiry

Ahmedabad, Gujarat – June 16, 2025 – The Gujarat High Court, in a significant ruling, has upheld a Labour Court's decision to reinstate a workman, Mansukhbhai Purshottambhai Vaghela , emphasizing that an employer cannot presume 'abandonment of service' due to prolonged absence if the workman cites illness and the employer fails to conduct a proper inquiry. Justice Gita Gopi dismissed the petition filed by the State of Gujarat (R&B Division), affirming the reinstatement of the workman without back wages but with continuity of service.

The court underscored that termination on grounds of "continued ill-health" under Section 2(oo)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, requires the employer to prove this condition and, typically, to follow due procedure, which was absent in this case.

Case Background: A Sweeper's Long Battle

Mansukhbhai Purshottambhai Vaghela was engaged as a daily wager sweeper with the petitioner department (R&B Division, Bhavnagar) from May 1, 1991, and was later put on a fixed pay scale. He claimed to have worked until August 25, 2004, though the department contended his absence began in 1993. Vaghela stated his absence was due to severe health issues, including tuberculosis and a brain injury, for which he provided medical evidence (Exh. 41 to 46).

After being denied rejoining in 2004, Vaghela raised an industrial dispute. The Labour Court, Bhavnagar, in its award dated October 16, 2014 (Reference (LCB) No.105 of 2005), partly allowed his claim, ordering reinstatement with continuity of service but without back wages. The State challenged this award in the High Court (Special Civil Application No. 5468 of 2015).

Arguments Before the High Court

Petitioner (State of Gujarat) contended: * The workman voluntarily abandoned his service, being absent from 1993 to 2004 despite multiple communications. * An undertaking given by the workman in June 1994 for regular attendance was breached. * Prolonged absence itself amounts to abandonment, not requiring a formal termination order, citing Vijay S.Sathaye Vs. Indian Airlines Limited . * There was a delay by the workman in raising the dispute, relying on Prabhakar Vs. Joint Director Sericulture Department & Anr.

Respondent ( Mansukhbhai Vaghela ) argued: * His absence was due to genuine and severe illness (TB and brain injury), and he had informed the department. * No departmental inquiry was conducted before his services were effectively terminated. * He was denied notice pay, retrenchment compensation, and gratuity. * His evidence before the Labour Court, including medical documents, remained unchallenged as the petitioner failed to cross-examine him. * Delay in raising a dispute does not bar relief if the termination is illegal, citing Ajaib Singh Vs. Sirhind Coop. Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Ltd. * The High Court should be slow to interfere with Labour Court awards based on equity, citing Syed Yakoob Vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan .

High Court's Detailed Analysis and Reasoning

Justice Gita Gopi meticulously examined the evidence and legal precedents. The Court noted that the workman's deposition and medical evidence before the Labour Court (Exh. 9, Exh. 41-46) were not challenged through cross-examination by the petitioner.

On Abandonment vs. Continued Ill-Health: The Court distinguished the State's reliance on Vijay S.Sathaye , noting the facts were different (VRS application, joining another employer). It emphasized that abandonment implies a voluntary relinquishment with no intent to return, which was not established here as Vaghela communicated his illness and sought to rejoin.

The Court observed: > "The continuous communications between the petitioner-department and the respondent-workman from the year 1993 to 2004 appears to be informing each other asking the respondent-workman to join the service and the respondent-workman informing the petitioner-department about the illness of his family and his own personal ailment."

The High Court highlighted Section 2(oo)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which excludes "termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health" from the definition of 'retrenchment'. However, the onus was on the employer to establish such 'continued ill-health' preventing the workman from performing duties.

> "Enquiry was necessary to prove that the employee had continued to be in ill-health. The termination could not have been effected on the basis of some mere presumption."

The Court cited Anand Bihari and Ors. Vs. Rajasthan State Road Corporation to explain that "ill-health" must be such that it interferes with the normal discharge of duties. It found the petitioner department "failed to prove such a condition of the respondent-workman before the Labour Court."

Necessity of Inquiry and Proper Procedure: The judgment stressed the petitioner's failure to conduct any departmental inquiry into Vaghela's prolonged absence. The communication dated 25.08.2004 (Exh.24) from the department was merely a rejection of Vaghela's request for medical leave and reinstatement, not a termination order.

The Court referred to M/s. Premsons Trading (P) Ltd. Vs. Shri Dinesh Chandeshwar Rai , where it was held that to prove voluntary abandonment, an employer must issue a notice to the workman to resume duties. > "The petitioner department failed to prove abandonment of service by the respondent-workman. The respondent-workman was informing the petitioner department the cause of his absence... The termination could have become valid, had the petitioner department proved ‘continued illness’ not allowing the workman to continue with his normal duties."

On Delay and Back Wages: The Court found the Prabhakar case (on delay) inapplicable as Vaghela raised the dispute promptly in 2004 after his request to rejoin was formally rejected. The denial of back wages by the Labour Court was deemed appropriate, aligning with principles laid out in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Bhurumal , especially given the long period of absence, though reinstatement was justified due to the illegal nature of the termination (lack of inquiry).

Final Verdict and Rejection of Stay

The High Court concluded that the Labour Court's award for reinstatement with continuity of service but without back wages was "just and proper" and required no interference.

> "The reason given by the Labour Court for reinstating the respondent-workman are on the basis of evidence on record. The award is just and proper, which requires no interference from this Court. In the result, the present petition is rejected."

Following the pronouncement, the Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Parth Patel requested a stay of the judgment, intending to appeal. However, counsel for the workman, Mr. Vishal P. Thakker, highlighted that Vaghela is now 65 years old, in poor health, and in dire need of his legal dues.

Considering the workman's age, health, and the fact that the Labour Court's award had been stayed since 2015 (with directions for Section 17-B wages), Justice Gita Gopi rejected the stay application, noting that reinstatement would likely not be feasible at this stage, implying monetary dues would be critical.