Illegal termination followed by reinstatement entitles the workman to continuity of service.

The respondent-workman was appointed as a helper in the petitioner-Nagar Palika’s Water Department on 16 March 1993 and his services were terminated on 18 July 2001.

He raised an industrial dispute under Section 10(1)(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which was referred to the Labour Court, Junagadh, on 5 November 2001.

The Labour Court partly allowed the reference by Award dated 30 July 2012, directing reinstatement on the original post with continuity of service but without back wages.

The Nagar Palika challenged the Award under Articles 226 and 227, contending that the workman had not proved the employer–employee relationship, completion of 240 days’ service preceding termination, or any valid appointment through a recruitment process.

The workman contended that he had continuously served for approximately eight years, that the Nagar Palika had taken inconsistent positions in its written statement, and that its witness’s evidence was rightly discarded because the witness did not remain available for cross-examination.

Whether the Labour Court was justified in holding that the workman’s termination was illegal for non-compliance with the statutory requirements under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and in directing reinstatement.

Whether the workman was entitled to continuity of service upon reinstatement, notwithstanding the Nagar Palika’s objections and the pendency of regularisation petitions concerning similarly situated employees.

Whether the High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, should interfere with the Labour Court’s Award.

The Court applied Section 10(1)(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, concerning the reference of an industrial dispute to the Labour Court, and Section 25F, which requires compliance with prescribed conditions before retrenchment of a qualifying workman.

The Court relied on the principle that an employer disputing the workman’s service particulars must produce relevant employment records, including material concerning completion of 240 days and the applicable seniority position.

Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors., (2002) 9 SCC 492, holds that once termination is set aside and reinstatement is ordered, continuity of service ordinarily follows because reinstatement is not a fresh appointment.

The Court also referred to Nanjibhai Madhabhai v. State of Gujarat, Special Civil Application No. 2192 of 2017, as a coordinate-bench decision recognising the same principle.

The Court found that the Nagar Palika had adopted inconsistent positions: it initially denied that the workman had been employed, but subsequently pleaded that he had been relieved on a “last come, first go” basis due to financial difficulties, thereby implicitly acknowledging the employment relationship.

The Nagar Palika failed to produce a seniority list or other documentary material rebutting the workman’s claim that he had completed more than 240 days of service preceding termination.

Its witness’s evidence was also unavailable for consideration because the witness did not present himself for cross-examination.

On this evidentiary record, the Labour Court was justified in treating the termination as illegal for non-compliance with Section 25F.

The High Court further held that continuity of service was a natural consequence of reinstatement and that pending regularisation proceedings involving other employees did not disentitle this workman from receiving the relief already granted.

It upheld the Labour Court’s finding that the termination was illegal and affirmed the direction to reinstate the workman on his original post with continuity of service and without back wages.

The pendency of regularisation petitions concerning similarly situated employees was held insufficient to justify denial of continuity of service.

The petition was dismissed, the Rule was discharged, and no order as to costs was made.