Gujarat High Court
Gagan Shrilal Singh vs Manager, Ineos Styrolation India Ltd on 1 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2737/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2737 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
GAGAN SHRILAL SINGH
Versus
MANAGER, INEOS STYROLATION INDIA LTD
==========================================================
Appearance:
PRATEEK S BHATIA(8629) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 01/04/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, thereby challenging the award passed by the learned Labour Court, Bharuch dated 18.11.2024 passed in Reference T (LCB) Case No.306 of 2017, whereby the reference filed by the petitioner - Workman came to be rejected on the ground that as the appointment of the petitioner was as a contractual trainee and on completion of the contract period, his service was disengaged, therefore, the same was excluded within Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Fri Apr 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 07 21:31:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2737/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2025 undefined the purview of the Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2. It is the case of the present petitioner that petitioner was appointed by the respondent in the year 2011 and on completion of satisfactory period of 4 years, petitioner was absorbed into establishment as a trainee (worker) on 01.04.2015. He was paid the wages of Rs.8,720/- towards the wages monthly and at the end of the contract for the period of 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016, another contract was executed for the period of 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017. At that time, he was paid monthly Rs.12,604/- and thereafter, his service was disengaged on completion of the contract from 31.03.2017, which was challenged before learned Labour Court. Learned Labour Court, after considering the evidence adduced, more particularly, the contract agreement and salary slip, comes to the conclusion that termination cannot be said to be retrenchment, as the same is excluded from the provision of Section 2(oo)(bb) and therefore, the reference of the petitioner came to be rejected, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.
Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Fri Apr 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 07 21:31:35 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2737/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2025 undefined
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Prateek Bhatia for the petitioner.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Bhatia submits that the petitioner has completed more than 240 days of service, which grants the protection under Section 25F of the I.D. Act. It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Bhatia that the respondent was replaced by another contractual employee, which is prohibited as per the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is further submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Bhatia that the petitioner was working in the Production Department, which is still ongoing and therefore, also the termination order is required to be set aside and the relief of reinstatement with consequential benefits is required to be granted.
5. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocate Mr. Bhatia and material placed on record, it appears that the contract came to be executed appointing the present petitioner on 01.04.2015 for the period of one year i.e. completed on 31.03.2016 as a trainee in the respondent - establishment. It is clarified in the above appointment order that on completion of the trainee period, arrangement would be Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Fri Apr 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 07 21:31:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2737/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2025 undefined automatically terminated, unless the period of temporary employment is further extended by a written communication from the company. As per the appointment letter, the monthly consolidated salary was fixed of Rs.8,720/-. The salary break up (CTC), which is produced along with the petition memo dated 01.04.2015, wherein also the designation is mentioned trainee worker, shows the extension of the contract for a further period of 12 months made vide communication dated 11.05.2016 on the same terms and conditions as mentioned in the previous contract. Again, salary revised (CTC) break up, where the designation is mentioned as trainee worker and term is mentioned as a fixed term period from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017. It appears that on completion of the contract, the service of the petitioner, who was trainee, was disengaged from 31.03.2017. Learned Reference Court, after referring the definition of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the I.D. Act as well as relying upon the said appointment order as well as salary slip, has concluded that the disengagement of the respondent cannot be termed as retrenchment, as the same is excluded from the above provision. 5.1 This Court has considered the decision in the case of Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Fri Apr 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 07 21:31:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2737/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2025 undefined Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana V/s. Ram Pal, where the respondent employee was appointed on contract for a period of one year as tubewell operator/ tubewell driver. He did not possess the requisite qualification for appointment as tubewell operator/tubewell driver. His services were terminated by non- renewal of the contract as admitted by him. The Labour Court took the view that since the work was still in existence, the workman was entitled to be reinstated with continuity of service and 50% back wages. The High Court also granted relief to him on the ground that he had worked for 240 days in the twelve calendar months preceding the retrenchment and, therefore, the termination of his services was in violation of section 25-F of the Act. The Supreme Court observed that: "Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act clearly provides that the provisions relating to retrenchment did not include, inter alia, termination of services of a workman as a result of non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein." It was further observed that the provisions of section 25-F relied upon by the High Court applied only when there was retrenchment, and when there was no Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Fri Apr 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 07 21:31:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2737/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2025 undefined retrenchment within the meaning of the Act, the provisions of section 25-F would not apply. The Supreme Court, therefore, held that the award of the Labour Court and the decision of the High Court were unsustainable in law and had to be set aside. The Supreme Court also held that section 25-G would also not apply when there was no retrenchment. This Court is of the view that in absence of any evidence suggesting that on completion of the trainee period, the respondent was appointed on regular basis and was getting regular wages, no error has been committed by the learned Labour Court in dismissing the reference. In addition, the petitioner has also failed to establish his case by oral evidence and therefore, also relief prayed by the petitioner was rightly denied by the leaned Labour Court.
5.2 Considering the overall facts, this Court did not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Hence, present petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. Resultantly, present petition is dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) Vikramsinh Amarsinh Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Fri Apr 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 07 21:31:35 IST 2025