Junagadh Agricultural University vs Damodar Dhayabhai Hirpara

M.R. Shah, J.—By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and award dated 23.04.2003 passed by the Labour Court, Junagadh in Reference (LCJ) No. 1048/1990, by which the Labour Court has directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with all consequential benefits and continuity of service with 25% back wages.

Respondent was serving as Field Labourer in the year 1984-85. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that he left the work on his own on and from 31.05.1985. That thereafter, after a period of two years i.e. in the year 1987, the respondent raised industrial dispute challenging his alleged termination/retrenchment with effect from 31.05.1985 and the said reference was referred to the Labour Court, Junagadh which was numbered as Reference (LCJ) No. 1048/1990. It was the specific case on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent workman has not worked for not less than 240 days in the preceding year and that he has worked only for 104 days and in less than one year. That the learned Labour Court by impugned judgment and award partly allowed the said reference by directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent workman with all consequential benefits and continuity of service with 25% back wages on the ground that there is a breach of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, as the respondent workman has worked for not less than 240 days in the last preceding year. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 23.04.2003 passed by the Labour Court, Junagadh in Reference (LCJ) No. 1048/1990, petitioner has preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Shri D.G. Chauhan, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the Labour Court has materially erred in directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with 25% back wages on the ground that the alleged termination/retrenchment is in breach of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is submitted that as such respondent has failed to establish and prove that he has worked for not less than 240 days in the last preceding year. It is further submitted that even in the statement of claim, respondent never claimed that he has worked for not less than 240 days in the last preceding year. It is submitted that as such respondent worked for only 104 days in the last preceding year as a field labourer and as and when the work was available, he was offered the work, therefore, the Labour Court has materially erred in holding that there is a breach of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is submitted that even the industrial dispute was raised after a period of two years. Therefore, it is requested to allow the present petition.

Petition is opposed by Shri J.K. Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent by submitting that in the facts and circumstances of the case, when the Labour Court found that termination/retrenchment was in breach of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the same is not required to be interfered by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it is requested to dismiss the present petition.

Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and considered the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court. It appears that the Labour Court has passed an award directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with 25% back wages on the ground that though the respondent had worked for 240 days, his services were terminated without any notice and/or notice pay and/or without making payment of retrenchment compensation and the said termination is in breach of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, considering the impugned judgment and award, it appears that the finding given by the Labour Court to the effect that respondent worked for 240 days is based on no evidence. In fact there is no evidence on record to establish that the respondent worked for not less than 240 days in the last preceding year. On the contrary, it appears that the respondent worked for only 104 days as filed labourer and he was called for the duty as and when work was available. Under the circumstances, when the finding of the Labour Court that the respondent worked for 240 days is based on no evidence, the same cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. Consequently, when it is not proved that the respondent workman worked for not less than 240 days in the last preceding year, there is no question of complying with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and therefore, the finding given by the Labour Court that the termination/retrenchment is in breach of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, also deserves to be quashed and set aside.

It is required to be noted that it is the specific case on behalf of the petitioner that he worked for only 104 days in the year 1984-85 as field labourer and that he himself stopped coming to the labour work and he raised the dispute after a period of two years of alleged termination. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.

In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, petition succeeds. Impugned judgment and award dated 23.04.2003 passed by the Labour Court, Junagadh in Reference (LCJ) No. 1048/1990, is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No costs.