Mandatory Reinstatement Is Justified for Termination Violating Section 25F and Continuous Service Thresholds Under the Industrial Disputes Act

The respondent-workman, Dinesh Ramanlal Vaghela, was engaged by the petitioner (the Board) for miscellaneous hand pump repair work starting in December 1990

During a scarcity period, the Board deputed him to work under the Taluka Development Officer (TDO), Wadhvan, from February 2, 1996, to July 31, 1996

His services were orally terminated on August 1, 1996

The workman raised an industrial dispute, leading to Reference (LCS) No. 24 of 2005.

The Labour Court, Surendranagar, issued an award on May 17, 2007, directing reinstatement without back wages

The Board and the TDO filed separate writ petitions challenging this award.

1. Whether the respondent-workman had completed 240 days of continuous service in the year preceding his termination as required under the Industrial Disputes Act

2. Whether the oral termination of the workman violated the statutory procedures for retrenchment and seniority

3. Whether the TDO was liable for the implementation of the reinstatement award

The court primarily applied Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which mandates specific conditions precedent (such as notice or wages in lieu of notice) before retrenching a workman who has been in continuous service for not less than one year

It further relied on Sections 25G (the principle of "last come, first go") and 25H (re-employment of retrenched workmen) of the ID Act

Additionally, the court took note of the principle of parity, following the precedent established in SCA No. 4400 of 2007 involving a similarly situated workman from the same scarcity project

The court found that while the Board claimed the workman worked intermittently, the Board’s own records produced before the Labour Court confirmed he worked 275 days in 1990-1991 and 292 days in 1991

The workman’s oral testimony regarding continuous service until 1996 remained uncontroverted by the Board in cross-examination

Consequently, the Labour Court correctly held that the respondent was a regular employee whose termination without statutory compliance violated Section 25F

Furthermore, evidence suggested that juniors were retained and new persons were potentially re-employed, violating Sections 25G and 25H

The court noted that a co-worker (Kishor G. Satade), terminated on the same day under identical circumstances, had his reinstatement upheld by both a Single Judge and a Division Bench of the High Court

thus, judicial consistency required a similar outcome here.

The court held that the workman had proved continuous service and the Board failed to follow the mandatory provisions of the ID Act

The petitioner Board was directed to implement the award within two months of receiving the judgment

All interim reliefs were discharged