Award Of Reinstatement Not Automatic When Termination Order Is Passed In Violation Of Section 25F Of Industrial Disputes Act: Bombay HC

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Anil L. Pansare held, “ The issue has been well settled by catena of judgments that an order of termination passed in violation of Section 25F of the Act of 1947 although may be set aside, but an award of reinstatement is not automatic.”

The petitioner was represented by Advocate S. A. Kalbande and the Respondents were represented by Advocate U. R. Tanna.

The facts of the case suggested that the petitioner was appointed as a Casual Labourer and he worked for the period from July, 1985 to June, 1988. His services were allegedly terminated orally with effect from June, 1988 without following due procedure, including Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondent – employer came up with a case of willful absenteeism with effect from 1-8-1988.

In his cross-examination, the petitioner admitted that he worked as Casual Labour in the electrification division of the railway from January, 1987 to July, 1988 and his name was not sponsored by the employment exchange and he did not receive any written order of appointment nor did he receive any termination order. He denied that he had voluntarily left the work. The respondent had also admitted that it did not issue any notice to the workman for his absence.

The CGIT-cum-Labour Court found that the petitioner had worked for more than 240 days preceding 12 months from the date of his termination and there was no evidence to show that he had abandoned the work. The provisions of Section 25 of the Act of 1947 was not compiled before termination of his service. Accordingly CGIT held that termination of petitioner was not justified and the same was illegal. The Labour Court held that the appointment of the petitioner was not in accordance with the rules and regulations. The Labour Court awarded monetary compensation of Rs 30,000 instead of granting reinstatement.

The petitioner relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Jayantibhai Raojibhai Patel Vs. Municipal Council, Narkhed wherein it has been held that when the termination of service is held illegal, reinstatement is normal rule. Reference was also made to Ranbir Singh Vs. Executive Engineer PWD (2021) 14 SCC 815 wherein it has been observed that upon own showing of the petitioner, the order of compensation in lieu of reinstatement can be passed in appropriate cases.

Going through a catena of judgments, the Bench observed, “As could be seen, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not laid down the law that the only option available to the Courts below is to reinstate the workman, if the service is terminated without following the procedure of law. The issue has been well settled by catena of judgments that an order of termination passed in violation of Section 25F of the Act of 1947 although may be set aside, but an award of reinstatement is not automatic.”

The Bench opined that the appellant was in gainful employment after termination of service as he admitted in cross-examination that he was working as Casual Labour which is a work akin to what he was employed for by the respondent.

Affirming the decision of the Labour Court, the Bench held, “Considering the aforesaid facts, the Labour Court thought it proper to award compensation of Rs. 30,000/- instead of granting relief of reinstatement or back wages. This view is based on well settled principles of law and is, even otherwise, a possible view. No interference is, therefore, called for in writ jurisdiction.”

Dismissing the petition, the Bench ordered that a cost of Rs 5,000 be deposited by the petitioner with the Bar Library, High Court Bar Association, Nagpur within four weeks.

Cause Title: Shri Sharad S/o Madhavrao Mohitkar vs The Chief General Manager [Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-NAG:11900]

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocate S. A. Kalbande

Respondents: Advocates U. R. Tanna and Dr. (Mr.) R. S. Sundaram

Click here toread/download Order: