Oral Termination Without Maintaining Seniority List or Proving Service of Retrenchment Notice Violates Industrial Disputes Act

The respondent-workman was appointed as a Daily Wager by the petitioner on February 1, 2007.

Following a High Court direction in a previous petition (SCA No. 7160 of 2014) to examine his eligibility for benefits under G.R. dated October 17, 1988, the petitioner allegedly terminated his services on May 8, 2015.

The petitioner contended that the termination was a lawful retrenchment effective December 25, 2014, necessitated by a policy (G.R. dated September 15, 2014) to outsource seasonal work, and that retrenchment compensation had been paid.

The Labour Court, Ahmedabad, in Reference-T (LCA) No. 405 of 2016, found the termination illegal and ordered reinstatement with continuity of service.

1. Whether the termination of the respondent-workman’s services complied with the legal requirements of retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

2. Whether there was a violation of Sections 25F, 25G, and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Section 25F, which mandates conditions precedent (notice and compensation) for retrenching a workman in continuous service for one year.

Section 25G, which prescribes the "last come, first go" principle.

Section 25H, regarding the re-employment of retrenched workmen.

Evidentiary requirement of proving "continuous service" of 240 days in a calendar year to qualify for protection against illegal termination.

The Court found that the respondent had worked continuously from 2007 to 2015, completing more than 240 days in each calendar year.

Although the petitioner claimed retrenchment occurred on December 25, 2014, the Court noted that the petitioner’s own witness (Range Forest Officer) admitted the workman continued in service until an oral termination on May 8, 2015.

The Court observed that the petitioner failed to prove that the retrenchment notice was served legally before payment of compensation and failed to maintain a seniority list at the District or State level, thereby violating Section 25G.

The Labour Court’s finding—that the seasonal work policy did not exempt the employer from statutory compliance—was upheld as being based on cogent evidence.

The Court affirmed that the petitioner violated Sections 25F, 25G, and 25H of the ID Act.

The petition was dismissed for lack of merit, the rule was discharged, and no costs were ordered.