Daily-Wage Worker Who Served 7 Years Keeps ₹70,000 Compensation As Gujarat HC Rejects Employer’s Challenge to Award

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Labour Court’s finding that the respondent had completed 240 days of service, including its adverse inference from the petitioner’s failure to produce muster rolls and attendance records, warranted interference under Article 226.

The court held

The High Court found no illegality or perversity in the Labour Court’s award warranting interference under Article 226.

It also directed

It dismissed the petition, leaving undisturbed the award of ₹70,000 compensation and ₹5,080 in costs.

01Facts

The respondent, a daily-wage worker, alleged that he had worked continuously for seven years and that his services were orally terminated in April 1997.

¶ 4

The Labour Court, Godhra, partly allowed his reference, finding that he had completed 240 days of service and that the termination violated Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

¶ 4.1

As the respondent had crossed the age of superannuation during the proceedings, the Labour Court awarded compensation of ₹70,000 and costs of ₹5,080 instead of reinstatement.

¶ 4.5

The Deputy Executive Engineer challenged that award under Article 226, arguing, among other things, that the respondent had not proved 240 days of service and that the Labour Court had wrongly drawn an adverse inference from the employer’s failure to produce service records.

¶ 1–2.2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Labour Court’s finding that the respondent had completed 240 days of service, including its adverse inference from the petitioner’s failure to produce muster rolls and attendance records, warranted interference under Article 226.

¶ 4.1–4.3

ii.2. Whether the Labour Court’s finding that the termination violated Section 25F, and its award of ₹70,000 in compensation instead of reinstatement, warranted interference.

¶ 4.4–4.5

03Law Applied

Article 226 permits the High Court to interfere with a Labour Court award where an illegality or perversity warranting judicial intervention is shown.

¶ 1, 4.3, 5

Under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 25B concerns continuous service, while Sections 25F, 25G and 25H prescribe protections and requirements relevant to retrenchment and termination.

¶ 4.1

Section 25F requires compliance with its statutory conditions before terminating a workman within its ambit.

¶ 4.4

The judgment cites no judicial precedents.

Provisions in the judgment · 4

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 25Section 25FSection 25GSection 25H

04Reasoning

The Labour Court had ordered production of the respondent’s service records, including muster rolls and attendance sheets, but the petitioner did not comply; the High Court therefore found no basis to disturb the adverse inference drawn from that failure.

¶ 4.1–4.2

The petitioner also failed to demonstrate perversity in the Labour Court’s finding that the respondent had completed 240 days of service.

¶ 4.3

Given the finding of non-compliance with Section 25F and the respondent’s age, the High Court held that compensation instead of reinstatement was not unreasonable or excessive.

¶ 4.4–4.5