Allahabad HC Upholds Reinstatement And Back Wages For Railway Casual Worker Despite 8-Year Delay In Raising Dispute

The workman was engaged as a casual labourer from 7 December 1975. The Management said he worked in broken spells against temporary sanctions and that his engagement ended upon expiry of the relevant sanction or completion of the work. The workman claimed that he worked continuously from 22 December 1975 to 21 December 1976, completed 240 days, and was orally prevented from working from 28 February 1978 without notice or retrenchment compensation.

The Labour Court found in the workman’s favour and granted reinstatement with consequential relief. The Management challenged the award under Article 226, relying, among other things, on the alleged non-completion of 240 days, delay of about eight years in raising the dispute, destruction of old employment records, and the casual nature of the engagement.

Section 25-B(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 requires the 240-day test to be assessed by reference to the twelve calendar months immediately preceding the relevant date; where established, Section 25-F requires compliance with its conditions before retrenchment.

Section 2(oo)(bb) excludes termination on expiry of a fixed-term contract or in accordance with a stipulation in that contract; the employer must establish the relevant contractual terms, and a general assertion of temporary or work-specific engagement is insufficient.

Under Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Ltd., delay alone does not bar an industrial dispute, though actual prejudice may be relevant and relief may be moulded.

Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board v. Mohan Lal establishes that delay, along with the nature and length of employment and other relevant circumstances, must inform the choice of relief.

Judicial review under Article 226 is not an appeal on facts; interference is warranted for such matters as findings based on no evidence, perversity, disregard of material evidence, or an error of law apparent on the record.

The Management did not prove that the workman’s engagement was governed by a fixed-term contract containing a stipulation for automatic cessation; the existence of work sanctions or muster rolls did not establish such a term.

The workman relied on the Management’s own records and its witness’s evidence concerning 240 days, and the High Court found no basis to conclude that the Labour Court ignored material evidence or reached a conclusion unsupported by the record.

The destruction of records under a retention policy did not itself disprove the workman’s case, and the Management’s assertion of abandonment was unsupported by cogent evidence of voluntary relinquishment.

Although the eight-year delay and the claimed prejudice were relevant, the Court held that delay was not an automatic bar and found no demonstrated basis to set aside the award on that ground.

Given the limited scope of Article 226 review, the Management had not shown a reviewable error in the Labour Court’s findings or relief.

The writ petition was dismissed and the Labour Court’s award was affirmed; there was no order as to costs.