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
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.
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
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
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
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
