Illegal termination violating Sections 25F and 25G warrants reinstatement absent exceptional reasons for compensation.

The petitioner worked as a daily-wage Chowkidar with the respondent from 1 June 2010.

After he represented on 6 December 2017 seeking benefits under the Government Resolution dated 17 October 1988, his services were terminated in December 2018 without compliance with the statutory requirements of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“ID Act”).

The dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Godhra, which partly allowed the reference and awarded lump-sum compensation of ₹1 lakh instead of reinstatement.

The petitioner challenged the denial of reinstatement before the High Court.

The record showed that he had completed 240 days of service and that persons appointed after him continued to work in the department.

Whether the petitioner had completed 240 days of continuous service so as to attract the protection of Section 25F of the ID Act?

Whether the termination was illegal for non-compliance with Section 25F and for violation of the “last come, first go” principle under Section 25G of the ID Act?

Whether reinstatement, rather than lump-sum compensation, was the appropriate relief in the circumstances of the case?

The Court applied Sections 25B, 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Section 25B defines “continuous service” and, upon completion of the requisite period of service, Section 25F requires one month’s notice or wages in lieu thereof, retrenchment compensation, and notice to the appropriate Government before retrenchment.

Section 25G embodies the “last come, first go” rule, permitting departure from it only for recorded and cogent reasons.

Relying on BSNL v. Bhurumal, (2014) 7 SCC 177, and Hari Nandan Prasad v. Employer, I/R to Management of FCI, (2014) 7 SCC 190, the Court held that reinstatement should ordinarily follow where termination of a daily-wage worker amounts to unfair labour practice or violates Section 25G; compensation may be substituted only for weighty, exceptional reasons, which must be stated.

A daily-wage employee does not, by reinstatement, acquire a right to regularisation.

The Court also relied on Divisional Manager v. Nareshbhai Kalubhai Parmar, 2024 (0) AIJEL-HC-248515, concerning reinstatement where the establishment continued to function.

The Labour Court relied on the respondent’s work statement to find that the petitioner had completed 240 days of service, thereby attracting Section 25F.

The respondent admittedly did not comply with any of the mandatory requirements of Section 25F before terminating him.

Further, the evidence showed that the department’s work continued and that employees appointed after the petitioner remained in service; the respondent also failed to produce documents despite an order for production.

This established a violation of Section 25G and supported the finding that the petitioner had been subjected to an unfair labour practice.

Since the respondent’s activities had not ceased, there was a practical possibility of reinstatement.

Applying the principle that reinstatement is the rule in cases involving unfair labour practice or violation of “last come, first go,” the Court held that the Labour Court had erred in substituting ₹1 lakh compensation without sufficient justification.

The respondent was directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service within eight weeks from receipt of the judgment.

Reinstatement was ordered without back wages because the petitioner had not established that he remained unemployed or without gainful employment during the intervening period.

The Rule was made absolute, with no order as to costs.