Industrial Disputes Act | Violation Of Retrenchment Procedure U/S 25F & 25G Warrants Reinstatement, Not Mere Compensation: Gujarat HC
The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that once a Labour Court comes to the conclusion that Sections 25F, G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act have been violated, reinstatement of workman ought to follow. The Bench comprising Justice Biren Vaishnav was hearing several petitions challenging the Labour Court's order wherein compensation of Rs. 72,000 was awarded to each of...
The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that once a Labour Court comes to the conclusion that Sections 25F, G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act have been violated, reinstatement of workman ought to follow.
The Bench comprising Justice Biren Vaishnav was hearing several petitions challenging the Labour Court's order wherein compensation of Rs. 72,000 was awarded to each of the Petitioner-workmen rather than reinstatement with backwages.
The Petitioners submitted that their services were put to an end in August 2010 without following the procedure and without awarding compensation. There was a clear violation of Sections 25(G) and (H), they pleaded.
It was stated that the Labour Courts had found the termination bad for each of the Petitioners. Having drawn adverse inference against the Respondents, the Labour Court had awarded the compensation which was meagre in the eyes of the Petitioners, even as work was available. Reliance was placed on Kalamuddin M. Ansari vs. Government of India where in similar facts and circumstances, the High Court had set aside the order of compensation and ordered reinstatement of employees with continuity of service.
The AGPs supported the decision of the Labour Court on the ground that there was a delay in raising the dispute. Further, the work at the canal had been outsourced. Thus, reinstatement was not possible.
Perusing the contentions, Justice Vaishnav noted that the Labour Court had clearly concluded that there was a violation of sections 25(F), (G) and (H) of the ID Act. Therefore, the only question was whether the Labour Court should have fallen short of awarding reinstatement with or without backwages.
Reference was made to Gauri Shanker vs. State of Rajasthan, wherein the Supreme Court had modified the order of Labour Court granting compensation in lieu of reinstatement. Justice Vaishnav recalled the following observations of the Top Court:
"The learned single Judge and the Division Bench under their supervisory jurisdiction should not have modified the award by awarding compensation in lieu of reinstatement which is contrary to the well settled principles of law laid down in catena of cases by this Court."
Keeping in view the precedents and the fact that compensation would be detrimental to the Petitioners who had worked for more than 20 years, the High Court modified the order of the Labour Court granting lump-sum compensation and ordered the employer to reinstate the workmen in service with continuity of service.
Case No.: C/SCA/1443/2022
Case Title: RAMESHBHAI BHATHIBHAI PAGI v/s DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 328