Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1780 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Bachubhai Adhelabhai Ambalia

2017-11-03

MOHINDER PAL

body2017
JUDGMENT : Mohinder Pal, J. 1. Present is the petition against the award passed by the Labour Court in Reference No. 83 of 2004 vide which the respondent-workman has been reinstated with 50% back wages. Respondent-Workman was serving as Watchman-Rojkamdar since 1996. He worked till 2004. The details of work done by the respondent are as under: Sr.No. Particulars Days 1 In 1996, from May to March 360 2. In 1997, from May to March 365 3. In 1998, from May to March 61 4. In 1999, from May to March 305 5. In 2000, from May to March 365 6. In 2001, from May to March 365 7. In 2002, from May to March 365 8. In 2003, from May to March 365 9. In 2004, from May to March 81 2. Since the service of the workman came to be terminated, he raised dispute before the Labour Court. While taking into account the period of work, the Labour Court decided the reference in favor of the workman with reinstatement along with 50% back wages. Aggrieved from this decision, the State has preferred this petition. 3. Though, notice has been served upon the workman, no reply has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the initial appointment of the workman was an irregular appointment and his service has been rightly terminated in the year 2004 as a new employee who has been selected after due process has been given appointment at his place. She has further referred to Section 25(f)(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which contains conditions precedent to retrenchment of workman which reads as under: “The workman has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice.” 4. As relied upon Section 25(f)(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 it has been contended that services of the workman are rightly terminated. 5. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no dispute to the fact that the workman has been employed in the year 1996. Thereafter, he has worked till 2004. As relied upon Section 25(f)(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 it has been contended that services of the workman are rightly terminated. 5. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no dispute to the fact that the workman has been employed in the year 1996. Thereafter, he has worked till 2004. As per the requirement of Section 25(f)(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the workman can be retrenched if he has put in one year of service and notice has been served upon him before 30 days of retrenchment. This Court is of the considered opinion that this provision may not be applicable to terminate the service of the respondent-workman. In the present case, the respondent-workman was required to have completed 240 days of service in the period of five years prior to the date of termination. On perusal of the work record, it shows that the respondent-workman has worked since 1996 and he has worked for more then 340 days as many as 6 to 7 times each year. Under these circumstances, there is no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Labour Court. 6. In view of the above, this petition, being devoid of merits, is dismissed. Rule is discharged. At the time of admission, the implementation awarded and payment of 50% back wages were stayed. Since the main matter has been disposed of, 50% back wages shall be paid to the workman within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and further, he will be taken back in the service as per the earlier order passed by the Labour Court. However, it is made clear that the respondent-workman shall not be entitled to the interest on back wages if the same are paid within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, if the back wages are not paid as aforementioned, the respondent workman will be further entitled to the interest of 12% per annum from the date of passing of the order of the Labour Court till the actual realisation.