- Workman serving for continuous years without taking breaks cannot be denied benefit under section 25F of the industrial disputes act merely because of contractual agreement.
- Section 25F talks about the conditions precedent to retrenchment of workers.
- The Gujarat High Court held that a workman’s benefit cannot be denied because he has a contractual agreement provided he has rendered services continuously without a break for years.
- Justice AY Kogje had dismissed the petition which was filed by the Jamnagar Municipal Corporation that challenged the award.
- 25F. No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until-
- the workman was given one month's notice in writing which indicated the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice had expired, or the workman had been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice;
- the workman had been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which was be equivalent to 15 days' average pay or any part thereof in excess of six months;
- notice in the prescribed manner was served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.
- Section 2(oo)(bb) exempt termination of services of a workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract from application of Section 25F. The High Court figured that after replacing a lineman [respondent] in the Light Department of the Corporation,the persons under the new contractor were doing the same work. Further, the Respondent had worked continuously without any break.
- The Labour Court had held that the workmen had work with the Petitioners since 2010 as linemen for the purpose of maintenance of streetlights. Therefore,it violated Sec 25(G) and (H) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
- Justice Kogje held that evidence clearly indicates that he has continuously worked, and it is not the case of the petitioner-Corporation that after 2010, the respondent was discontinued for the entire period and straightaway in the year 2015 was appointed by another contract.
- The High Court dismissed the application and held that the Respondents will not be covered u/s 2(oo)(bb). Thus, the Labour Court's order directing reinstatement of Respondent was upheld.
"Loved reading this piece by Krisha Mehta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
