Non-compliance with Section 25F mandatory requirements renders termination illegal, necessitating reinstatement despite engagement in gainful activities.

The respondent-workman was employed as a part-time cleaner/sweeper since May 1, 1988

Following brain surgery in 2002, the workman attempted to resume duties but was orally informed his services were no longer required

The employer contended the workman stopped coming voluntarily

After a failed representation and conciliation proceedings in 2012, the workman filed a reference in 2013

The Labour Court, Ahmedabad, in Reference (LCA) No. 113 of 2013 (dated 26.07.2022), ordered reinstatement with continuity of service but without back wages

The employer challenged the reinstatement, while the workman filed a cross-petition seeking back wages

1. Whether the reference was barred by inordinate delay or limitation given the cessation of work occurred in 2002

2. Whether the termination of the workman was in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act

3. Whether the workman is entitled to full back wages upon a finding of illegal termination

Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, defining "continuous service" as completing 240 days in the preceding 12 months

Section 25F, which mandates a one-month notice period or wages in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation for qualifying workmen

the principle that such relief is not automatic; the workman must prove a lack of gainful employment during the period of termination

The Court rejected the employer's plea of limitation, noting the workman was pursuing representations and conciliation until 2012; thus, the 2013 reference was within a reasonable time

The Court found that the workman’s claim of continuous service from 1988 to 2002 was not effectively challenged in cross-examination

Since the employer possessed but withheld best evidence (attendance and salary registers), a presumption was drawn in favor of the workman completing 240 days

The failure to provide notice under Section 25F rendered the termination illegal

Regarding back wages, the Court noted the workman admitted in his deposition to earning Rs. 2,000/month from private house cleaning, establishing gainful activity that dis-entitled him to back wages

It held that the reinstatement was justified due to a clear breach of Section 25F, but affirmed the denial of back wages because the workman failed the "no gainful employment" test

Interim relief was vacated, and Rule was discharged