Dismissal of challenge to recovery application award based on smallness of amount involved.

The respondent-workman was appointed as a Daily Wager in March 2010 in the Range Office of the petitioner-employer (State of Gujarat). His services were terminated on 08.04.2013 without any notice or notice pay.

Aggrieved, he filed Reference Case No. 37 of 2014 before the Labour Court seeking reinstatement, which was allowed, with the Labour Court directing the petitioner to reinstate him.

Upon the petitioner's non-compliance with the reinstatement order, the workman filed Recovery Application No. 10 of 2023, which was allowed by order dated 15.12.2023, directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 1,74,168/-.

The State challenged the recovery order before the High Court by way of the present Special Civil Application seeking quashing of the said order.

1. Whether the respondent-workman, having allegedly not completed 240 days of service in the 12 calendar months preceding his termination, was entitled to the protections of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, such that the termination was vitiated.

2. Whether the Labour Court misinterpreted Section 25(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (definition of "continuous service"), rendering its order erroneous and contrary to law.

3. Whether the High Court ought to interfere with the Labour Court's order in Recovery Application No. 10 of 2023 awarding Rs. 1,74,168/- to the workman.

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, specifically Section 25(B), which defines "continuous service" and embodies the threshold requirement that a workman must have rendered 240 days of service in the 12 calendar months preceding termination to claim the Act's retrenchment protections (notice/notice pay).

Principle of judicial restraint in writ adjudication on grounds of the smallness/triviality of the monetary amount involved.

The Court recorded the petitioner's contentions — that the workman had not completed 240 days of service in the 12 months preceding termination, that there was consequently no violation of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that the Labour Court had misread Section 25(B) of the Act.

The Court did not adjudicate these contentions on merits. It observed that "the amount involved in the present petition is only Rs.1,74,168/-," and held that "considering the smallness of amount," the petition was liable to be dismissed "without going into the merits of the matter by keeping all the grounds raised by the petitioner open".

The Court directed that the compensation of Rs. 1,74,168/- awarded by the Labour Court shall be deposited/paid by the petitioner to the respondent-workman within six weeks from the date of the judgment, if not already deposited.

The Court clarified that the judgment was delivered in light of the specific facts and circumstances of the case and shall not be considered a precedent.