Case Details: State of Gujarat vs. Chaganbhai Bhemabhai Damor - [2025] 181 taxmann.com 69 (HC-Gujarat)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- A.S. Supehia & Ms Nisha M. Thakore, JJ.
-
Ms Shruti Dhruve, AGP for the Appellant.
-
Paresh J. Brahmbhatt for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
In the instant case, the Respondent-workman was engaged on a monthly salary of Rs 1,750 and his services were terminated, which gave rise to reference proceedings. The Labour Court directed the appellant-State to reinstate the respondent-workman in service without back wages by setting aside his termination.
The Single Judge, by the impugned order, confirmed the award of the Labour Court. Thereafter, an appeal was made before the High Court.
The appellant contended that the Labour Court, as well as the Single Judge, had fallen into error in directing the reinstatement of the respondent by holding termination as illegal and in violation of the provisions of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
It was noted that the workman had not produced any documentary evidence or oral evidence in the form of his colleagues engaged at that time or any contemporaneous record to prove that he was actually engaged for more than 240 days in a year. Further, the workman had also not taken any plea of suppression of the muster roll.
On the other hand, the appellant department had categorically contended that, except for the period of 179 days, the workman was never engaged by them.
High Court Held
The High Court held that since the workman had miserably failed to establish that he was engaged for more than 240 days in a year, the Labour Court had fallen in gross error in directing the reinstatement of the respondent workman. Thus, the impugned order passed by the Single Judge was to be quashed and set aside.
List of Cases Referred to
- Samishta Dube v. City Board (1999) 3 SCC 14 (para 5)
- Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi v. Hindalco Industries Ltd. (2014) 11 S.C.C. 85 (para 5.1)
- R.M. Yellatti v. Asst. Executive Engineer [2006] 2005 taxmann.com 2728 (SC) (para 9)
- Surendranagar District Panchayat v. Dahyabhai Amarsinh [2006] 2005 taxmann.com 2725 (SC) (para 10)
- Gauri Shanker v. State of Rajasthan [2015] 4 taxmann.com 1496 (SC) (para 17).
The post Reinstatement Unsustainable as Workman Failed to Prove 240 Days’ Service for Sec. 25F Protection | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
