Oral Order

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By consent, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

3. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is impugning the award order dated 05.12.2025 in Complaint (IT) No.7 of 2023, whereby the said complaint is allowed and the termination of the respondent No.1 is held to be illegal and violating the mandatory provisions of Section 33 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

4. In the present case, the respondent No.1 along with eight other employees had preferred Reference (IT) Nos.131/2022 to 136/2022 and 138/2022 to 140/2022 praying for regularization of their services and other demands. The said reference cases are pending for adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot. Pending the said reference, the service of the respondent came to be orally terminated on 07.09.2024. The parties have led oral and documentary evidence in support of their contentions. After considering the submissions and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal has come to the following conclusions:-

          "So, considering the whole cross examination of the opponent's witness there is a direct or indirect admission about existence of employer and employee relationship between them and the applicant. It is pertinent to note that the opponent No.1 has not produced any document which were admitted during the cross examination of their witness, therefore adverse inference is required to be drawn. Considering the whole evidence on record it is proved that the applicant was working with the gram panchayat and she was terminated from service on dt.07.09.2024, at the time when her dispute regarding regularization of her service was pending before this Tribunal, without seeking any written permission of this Tribunal, wherein the industrial dispute regarding regularization of service is pending.

          (8). Therefore, the opponent No.1 by terminating the applicant from service has changed her service conditions, which was the matter connected with the pending industrial dispute before this Tribunal. Hence, as per the provision of sec.33(1) of the I. D. Act, an express permission of this Tribunal was required before proceeding further and since the said mandate is not complied by the opponent, so on the said very count, the act of terminating service of the applicant turns out to be illegal.

          (9). Now when it is proved that the termination of service of the applicant pending an industrial dispute is illegal, so in that case it is to be presumed that the relationship of the employer and employee remains in to existence and the employee can directly prefer recovery proceedings claiming all the benefits for which he or she was entitled prior to such termination as if he or she is not terminated from service. Therefore, the applicant is to be put back in the original situation as she was when the reference case of regularization of service was pending. Hence, she is to be reinstated back on her service with continuity of service.

          (10). Further since the opponent No.1 has terminated the service of the applicant by violating the provisions of sec.33(1) without seeking written, permission of the Tribunal, so has violated the mandatory provision and thereby has committed an illegal act which also amounts to unfair labour practice. Even otherwise when the opponent No.1 has openly violated the mandatory provision for frustrating the judicial remedy exhausted by the employee and has terminated the employee from service so in that case if lesser amount of back-wages is awarded then it will amount as if the opponent is taking benefit of their own wrongful act and it will be like giving reward for such an illegal act. In pursuance to the above discussion it is required to refer the judgment of hon'ble Apex Court which is the case between Deepali Gundu Surwase v/s Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya, wherein in para 33(v) it is held as under:

          v) The cases in which the competent Court or Tribunal finds that the employer has acted in gross violation of the statutory provisions and/or the principles of natural justice or is guilty of victimizing the employee or workman, then the concerned Court or Tribunal will be fully justified in directing payment of full back wages. In such cases, the superior Courts should not exercise power under Article 226 or 136 of the Constitution and interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court, etc., merely because there is a possibility of forming a different opinion on the entitlement of the employee/workman to get full back wages or the employer's obligation to pay the same. The Courts must always be kept in view that in the cases of wrongful/illegal termination of service, the wrongdoer is the employer and sufferer is the employee/workman and there is no justification to give premium to the employer of his wrongdoings by relieving him of the burden to pay to the employee/workman his dues in the form of full back wages.

          So considering the ratio of above judgment also it is crystal clear that in cases of present type the order of full back-wages is to be passed."

5. Nothing is placed on record in the present proceedings to controvert such findings. The impugned order is passed giving cogent reasons and based on the evidence on record. No interference is called for. The present petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly, dismissed.

6. Learned counsel Mr. Nisarg Jain for the respondent nos.2 and 3 submits that back-wages have to be paid within a period of three months as per the impugned order. He prays that some more time may be granted to make the said payment.

7. Considering the request, the time to comply with the impugned order is extended till 30th June, 2026.