A badli worker completing continuous service is protected by Section 25F before termination.

The respondent-workman was enrolled as a “Registered Badli” by the petitioner jute mill and was first engaged in 1990.

The petitioner contended that he was engaged only intermittently against temporary labour requirements and had never worked for 240 days in any relevant year.

The workman remained absent from January 2005; after issuing an intimation on 21 October 2005, the petitioner removed his name from the Registered Badli list with effect from 12 November 2005 under Clause 5(b)(iii) of its Certified Standing Orders.

The workman claimed that his absence was due to illness and sought resumption of work in October 2007 after producing medical and fitness certificates.

The dispute was referred to the First Labour Court, which held that the termination was arbitrary and directed reinstatement with full back wages and consequential benefits from the date of termination until actual reinstatement.

The employer challenged the award under Article 226 of the Constitution, principally arguing that a Badli worker had no enforceable right to employment and that the workman had not proved continuous service or absence of gainful employment.

Whether the industrial dispute raised by a Registered Badli worker was maintainable under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, notwithstanding his status as a Badli worker.

Whether the workman had established “continuous service” under Sections 25B and 25D of the Industrial Disputes Act so as to attract the protection of Section 25F.

Whether the petitioner’s removal of the workman’s name from the Registered Badli list, without compliance with Section 25F, was illegal and unjustified.

Whether the Labour Court’s direction for reinstatement with full back wages and consequential benefits warranted interference in writ jurisdiction.

The Court applied Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, holding that the inclusive definition of “workman” does not, by itself, exclude a Badli worker from invoking the Act.

Under Sections 25B and 25F, a workman who establishes the requisite continuous service, including 240 days’ service in the preceding twelve months, cannot be retrenched without compliance with the statutory conditions of notice, retrenchment compensation and notice to the appropriate Government.

Section 25D casts a duty on the employer to maintain muster rolls and permit workmen presenting themselves for work to make entries.

The Court relied on Budge Budge Jute Mills Co. Ltd. v. Workmen, 1970 (1) LLJ 222, Lalappa Lingappa v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills Ltd., (1981) 2 SCC 238, Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Rashtriya Mills Mazdoor Sangh, (1986) 3 SCC 588, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. S.G. Kotturappa, (2005) 3 SCC 409, and Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation v. T.V. Anandappa, (2009) 17 SCC 473, on the ordinary status of Badli workers.

However, relying particularly on Gloster Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, 2013 SCC OnLine Cal 22994, it held that a Badli worker who completes the requisite continuous service ceases to be excluded from the protection of Section 25F.

The Court also referred to Ranbir Singh v. S.K. Roy regarding the employer’s duty to maintain employment records and the permissibility of drawing an adverse inference where relevant records are withheld.

The Court rejected the employer’s jurisdictional objection, distinguishing between the general status of a Badli worker and the statutory protection available upon proof of continuous service.

Although the petitioner asserted that the workman had worked only intermittently, the Labour Court found that continuous service from 1990 had neither been specifically denied nor disproved by employment records, and no effective cross-examination or documentary evidence was produced to establish that he had not completed 240 days in the relevant period.

The workman’s medical records and correspondence supported his explanation for absence, while the employer’s conduct, including its subsequent communication asking him to report, was treated as consistent with the subsistence of the employment relationship.

Applying Sections 25B and 25F and the principle in Gloster Ltd., the Court held that the workman’s continuous service brought him within the protection against retrenchment without statutory compliance.

Since the petitioner had removed him from the Badli list without complying with Section 25F, the termination was illegal.

The Court consequently found no ground to interfere with the Labour Court’s award in writ jurisdiction.

It further held that the respondent had rendered continuous service sufficient to attract Sections 25B and 25F, and that his removal from the Registered Badli list without following Section 25F was illegal and unjustified.

The writ application was dismissed, and the Labour Court’s direction for immediate reinstatement with full back wages and consequential benefits from the date of termination until actual reinstatement was upheld.

Connected applications were disposed of and any interim order was vacated.