Illegal termination warrants continuity of service from appointment, excluding benefits during the delayed dispute period.

The petitioner-workman was engaged as a daily-wage watchman by the respondent Forest Department from 1 July 1990. His services were terminated on 1 November 2008 without notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation.

He raised an industrial dispute in 2013, which was referred to the Labour Court, Bhavnagar, on 4 April 2013.

The Labour Court held that the termination violated Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and directed reinstatement on the original post with continuity of service from 4 April 2013 and 20% back wages.

Both sides challenged the award: the workman sought continuity from the date of appointment and full back wages, while the State sought setting aside of the award.

During the High Court proceedings, the workman, who was approximately 58 years old, stated that he would not claim continuity or other service benefits for the period from 1 November 2008 to 4 April 2013.

1. Whether the termination of a daily-wage workman who had completed 240 days of service in the preceding twelve months, without compliance with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was illegal

2. Whether the Labour Court was justified in directing reinstatement with continuity of service only from the date of reference, namely 4 April 2013, rather than from the date of initial appointment

3. Whether the workman was entitled to full back wages, or whether the delay in raising the dispute justified restricting or denying monetary and service benefits for the intervening period

4. Whether the award required interference on the ground that the workman was a daily-wage employee and had approached the Labour Court after a delay of approximately five years

The Court applied Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which prohibits retrenchment of a workman employed in continuous service for at least one year unless the statutory requirements of notice or wages in lieu of notice, retrenchment compensation and governmental notice are satisfied.

Section 25-B was applied to determine continuous service and the requirement of 240 days’ work in the preceding twelve months.

Although the initial burden to establish completion of 240 days lies on the workman, the employer’s failure to produce attendance and service records within its possession may justify an adverse inference against it.

The Court relied on Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors. , (2002) 9 SCC 492, for the principle that once termination is set aside and reinstatement is ordered, continuity of service ordinarily cannot be denied because reinstatement is not a fresh appointment.

The Court also recognised that delay in raising the industrial dispute may be addressed by restricting back wages or service benefits for the delayed period.

The Court upheld the finding that the workman had completed the statutory requirement of 240 days.

The employer had not produced the complete attendance registers and other records despite an order of the Labour Court, and the incomplete records did not establish the State’s contention that the workman had not completed 240 days.

Since the workman had rendered long service from 1990 and the termination admittedly occurred without compliance with Section 25-F, the termination was held illegal.

Applying the principle in Gurpreet Singh , the Court held that continuity could not be confined merely to the date on which the dispute was referred.

However, it balanced this relief against the workman’s unexplained five-year delay in raising the dispute and his concession that he would waive benefits for the period between termination and reference.

The Court therefore treated the period from 1 November 2008 to 4 April 2013 as a period for which no service benefits would be granted, while recognising continuity before termination and from the date of reference onward.

Reinstatement was not practically ordered because the workman was nearing the age of superannuation.

The workman’s petition, R/Special Civil Application No. 1987 of 2024, was partly allowed.

The Labour Court’s award dated 13 May 2022 was modified: the workman was held entitled to continuity of service from his date of appointment until termination and thereafter from 4 April 2013 until the date of judgment, but no service benefits were to be granted for the period from 1 November 2008 to 4 April 2013.

The Court did not grant the workman’s claim for full back wages; the judgment records that the Labour Court had erred in granting 20% back wages from 4 April 2013, although the operative modification specifically sets out the revised continuity-of-service entitlement.

No order as to costs was made.