Reinstatement justified for breach of Sections 25-F and 25-H where 240-day service is established through RTI records.

Respondent No. 1 worked as a daily wager computer operator for the petitioner-State from 01.02.2009 to 31.07.2010.

His services were orally terminated on 01.08.2010.

The workman challenged the termination before the Labour Court No. 1, Jamnagar in Reference (LCJ) No. 63 of 2015.

Evidence obtained under the RTI Act confirmed the workman had completed 284 days of service in 2009-2010.

It was further revealed that the Department hired another individual on 01.06.2011 without offering re-employment to the respondent.

The State challenged this award, alleging delay in filing the reference and failure to complete 240 days of service.

Notably, the respondent was reinstated on 01.10.2019 pending the petition.

1. Whether the termination of the respondent was in violation of the mandatory provisions of Sections 25-F and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

2. Whether the reference was barred by gross unexplained delay.

3. Whether the respondent was entitled to back wages despite being gainfully employed during the pendency of the dispute.

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, specifically Section 25-F, which mandates the payment of retrenchment compensation and one month's notice (or wages in lieu) for workmen who have completed 240 days of continuous service.

Section 25-H, which requires an employer to give preference to retrenched workmen when fresh vacancies for the same category of work arise.

The principle regarding back wages was applied, stating that such relief is not automatic and depends on the workman's lack of gainful employment during the intervening period.

The Court found that the workman successfully established, through RTI documents (Exhibits 13-16), that he had worked 284 days in the preceding year, satisfying the 240-day requirement.

The oral termination without notice or compensation constituted a blatant violation of Section 25-F.

The Court further noted that the petitioner failed to cross-examine the workman on these factual claims.

Regarding Section 25-H, the Court observed that the appointment of another daily wager (Bharat Dahyalal Hadiyal) in June 2011, without offering the post to the respondent, proved a statutory breach.

On the issue of delay, the Court accepted the respondent's explanation that the time was spent pursuing a prior writ petition and subsequent contempt proceedings, thus justifying the 2015 reference.

Finally, regarding back wages, the Court noted the respondent admitted to earning Rs. 8,000 per month elsewhere, which was higher than his original salary, thus disqualifying him from back wages.

The Court held that the termination was illegal due to the non-compliance with Sections 25-F and 25-H.

The Court confirmed the order for reinstatement with continuity of service but denied back wages due to the respondent's gainful employment.

The interim relief was vacated, and the respondent remains in service as a daily wager.