Facts
The respondent workman was appointed as a daily wager by the petitioner on May 1, 2008
Source reference: p. 2He worked continuously until his services were orally terminated on May 8, 2015
Source reference: p. 3, 4The petitioner-State contended that the workman was retrenched on December 25, 2014, in accordance with a Government Resolution (G.R.) dated September 15, 2014, which mandated outsourcing seasonal work
Source reference: p. 1, 2The State argued the workman had not completed 240 days of service for five consecutive years and thus was ineligible for reinstatement
Source reference: p. 2The workman challenged the termination before the Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Reference-T (LCA) No. 406 of 2016), which passed an award on January 29, 2025, granting reinstatement with continuity of service
Source reference: p. 1The petitioner approached the High Court challenging this award
Source reference: p. 1Issues
Whether the termination of the respondent workman's services was in violation of the statutory procedures prescribed under Sections 25F, 25G, and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Source reference: p. 3Whether the respondent workman had completed 240 days of continuous service in a calendar year to qualify for protection against illegal retrenchment
Source reference: p. 2, 4Law Applied
The Court applied the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, specifically Section 25F (conditions precedent to retrenchment), Section 25G (procedure for retrenchment/seniority), and Section 25H (re-employment of retrenched workmen)
Source reference: p. 3, 4It further considered the evidentiary requirements for proving "continuous service" of 240 days in a calendar year as a prerequisite for the protections afforded under the Act
Source reference: p. 2, 4Reasoning
The Court observed that while the petitioner claimed the workman was retrenched in December 2014 with compensation, the petitioner's own witness (Range Forest Officer) admitted in cross-examination that the workman continued working until May 8, 2015, and was terminated orally on that date
Source reference: p. 4The Court found no cogent evidence that the retrenchment notice was served on the workman via a valid mode of service prior to the payment of compensation
Source reference: p. 4The petitioner failed to maintain a seniority list at the District or State level for daily wagers, which constituted a procedural breach of Sections 25G and 25H of the ID Act
Source reference: p. 4Regarding the duration of service, the Court held that evidence established the workman had completed 240 days of work in each calendar year from 2008 to 2015
Source reference: p. 4The Court determined that the Labour Court’s findings were based on substantial evidence and not mere presumptions
Source reference: p. 4-5Holding
The High Court dismissed the Special Civil Application, holding that the petition was devoid of merit
The Court upheld the Labour Court’s award dated January 29, 2025, confirming that the termination was illegal due to the violation of Sections 25F, 25G, and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act
Source reference: p. 4-5The respondent workman remains entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service as directed by the lower court
Source reference: p. 2, 5No order as to costs was made
Source reference: p. 5Original Court PDF
STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTvsNAVINJI SAKRAJI THAKOR
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in