Reinstatement A Normal Course When S.25(F) ID Act Is Violated, Not Compensation: Gujarat HC Grants Relief To State-Employed Sweeper
In a recent order, the Gujarat High Court has held that the benefits of reinstatement would be a 'normal course' that ought to follow once there is a violative of Section 25(F) under the Industrial Disputes Act. Keeping in view this principle, the High Court reinstated, without backwages, the Petitioner who working as a 'sweeper' under the State for 6 years. The Labour Court's award...
In a recent order, the Gujarat High Court has held that the benefits of reinstatement would be a 'normal course' that ought to follow once there is a violative of Section 25(F) under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Keeping in view this principle, the High Court reinstated, without backwages, the Petitioner who working as a 'sweeper' under the State for 6 years. The Labour Court's award only granting lumpsum compensation to the tune of Rs. 54,000 as was modified to that extent. Justice Biren Vaishnav stated:
"Having therefore found that the Labour Court having positively held that there was violation of Sec.25(F) of the Act, for no fault of the petitioner, the Labour Court proceedings having been prolonged at the instance of the respondents, the petitioner could not have been then deprived of the benefits of reinstatement which is a normal course that ought to have been followed once violation of Sec.25(F) is otherwise proved."
The observation comes in a petition challenging Labour Court's award granting lump-sum compensation and seeking reinstatement with full backwages and consequential benefits.
The Petitioner-workman had been removed from service on account of outsourcing policy from May 2006 onwards. Initially, the Labour Court had granted reinstatement with 25% backwages but the same was set aside vide a fresh order in a Miscellaneous Application wherein compensation came to be granted.
The Petitioner primarily averred that she had worked for 240 days in each year of service continuously and further, the Respondents had failed to adduce any evidence which would establish that the termination was not bad in law. The AGP contrasted this with the argument that the Petitioner was a part-time worker.
The Labour Court had taken note of Director, Fisheries Terminal Department vs. Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Chavda to conclude that the petitioner was in continuous service of 240 days as defined in Section 25(B) of the Act and therefore, there was violation of provisions of Sec. 25(F) of the Act.
However, the Labour Court had also cited Hari Nandan Prasad & anr vs. Employer I/R to Management of Food Corporation of India & Anr to opine that reinstatement could not be granted due to a lapse of 12 years since termination.
The High Court was of the view that the Labour Court "materially erred" in not granting the benefit of reinstatement on the ground of period of 12 years having gone by since adjudication.
It observed that violation of Section 25(F) in the present case was 'writ large' and the proceedings were prolonged solely at the instance of the respondents.
Thus, the Respondents were directed to pass the reinstatement order within 3 months.
Case No.: C/SCA/1793/2019
Case Title: SAVITABEN MANGALBHAI HARIJAN v/s SUPERINTENDENT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 351