89-Day Health Worker’s Reinstatement Award Set Aside: P&H HC Says 2003 Regularisation Order Alone Could Not Establish 1997 Termination Was Illegal

Respondent No. 2 was engaged as a Ward Attendant on successive 89-day/ad hoc appointments from 2 September 1993 until 6 July 1997, with intervening breaks. After participating in a regular selection process on 27 June 1997, he was not selected, and his engagement ended shortly thereafter

He challenged the cessation, alleging non-compliance with the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and entitlement to regularisation under Government instructions. The Industrial Tribunal held in his favour and ordered reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date of his demand notice

The State challenged the award under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution

Under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not reappreciate evidence merely because another view is possible, but may intervene where an award contains an error of law, is perverse, or fails to consider material evidence and issues

Under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 25-F applies where cessation amounts to retrenchment; completion of 240 days alone does not resolve that question, which requires consideration of the definition of retrenchment in Section 2(oo), including the exclusion in Section 2(oo)(bb) for cessation in accordance with a contractual stipulation

A later regularisation instruction does not, without examination of its terms and scope, establish that an earlier cessation was illegal

Reasons are an essential component of judicial and quasi-judicial decisions; the Court relied on Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496, for that principle

The Tribunal based its award substantially on an office order regularising certain employees in District Mansa, without examining the underlying 2003 instructions, whether they covered the workman’s engagement in District Ferozepur, or whether they affected the legality of a cessation in 1997

It also failed to assess the successive appointment terms, intervening breaks, expiry of the final spell, and the workman’s non-selection in the regular recruitment process

Although the evidence included an admission that no retrenchment compensation had been paid, the Tribunal had not first determined whether the cessation constituted retrenchment or whether Section 2(oo)(bb) applied

The Tribunal also did not give reasoned consideration to the objections concerning delay and the department’s coverage by the Act

These omissions rendered the award unsustainable under the applicable supervisory-review standard

The judgment records no remand direction