Failure to contest reference proceedings despite notice warrants reinstatement of daily wager for violation of statutory procedures.

The respondent-workman was engaged as a daily wager by the petitioner department in April 1994 and worked until October 1, 2003—a period exceeding nine years

Following his oral termination, he initiated a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Despite being served notice and appearing initially to seek time for filing a reply, the petitioners failed to contest the proceedings or produce evidence

Consequently, the Labour Court, Junagadh, passed an award on August 14, 2014, directing reinstatement with continuity of service but without back wages

The petitioners challenged this award via the present writ petition after a delay of over 1.5 years, only after the respondent initiated recovery proceedings

1. Whether the Labour Court was justified in passing an award for reinstatement in the absence of the petitioners' evidence and defense

2. Whether the respondent-workman, as a daily wager, was entitled to reinstatement and continuity of service under the Industrial Disputes Act

The court primarily applied Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, regarding the adjudication of industrial disputes by Labour Courts

It adhered to the principle of natural justice regarding the "opportunity to be heard," noting that while a party must be given a fair chance to defend, persistent negligence in prosecuting a case allows the court to proceed on available evidence

Furthermore, the court applied the standard of judicial review under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, which restricts the High Court from overturning findings of fact unless they are perverse or unsupported by any material

The High Court observed that the petitioners were granted "ample opportunity" at every stage of the Labour Court proceedings but chose to remain absent and failed to file an affidavit-in-reply or lead oral/documentary evidence

The Court rejected the petitioners' contention that the award was purely ex parte, noting that they had entered an appearance through the APP and District Government Pleader but remained negligent in contesting the merits

Regarding the merits, the Court found that the respondent had worked for over nine years, and the petitioners failed to provide any documentary evidence in the present writ petition to contradict the Labour Court’s findings or the respondent's claim of completing 240 days

Since the petitioners’ averments were "vague and without supporting documents," the Court held there was no ground to interfere with the lower court's factual findings

The Court discharged the Rule and vacated any interim relief

The petitioners were specifically directed to reinstate the respondent-workman within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order