Belatedly disputing workman status does not warrant interference with a reasoned industrial award.

Prodip Mondal was employed by Emmanuel Ministries as a casual warden at a residential home from 2007.

He claimed that, after taking sanctioned leave, he was not permitted to rejoin and was terminated on 2 May 2018.

The State Government referred the dispute under Sections 10 and 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, asking whether the termination was justified and what relief Mondal was entitled to

The employer did not appear before the Industrial Tribunal despite service of notice, and the matter proceeded ex parte.

The Tribunal found Mondal to be a workman, held that his termination amounted to retrenchment in breach of Section 25F, and directed reinstatement with full back wages and consequential benefits, as well as payment of costs and compensation.

The employer later challenged the award and related proceedings, contending that the Tribunal should first have determined whether Mondal was a workman and seeking remittal of the matter.

1. Whether the Tribunal’s award should be interfered with or remitted because the employer disputed Mondal’s status as a workman.

2. Whether the Tribunal’s finding that Mondal’s termination was illegal for non-compliance with Section 25F warranted interference.

Under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 10 empowers the appropriate Government to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication, while Section 2A concerns an individual workman’s dispute relating to discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination.

Section 2(oo) defines retrenchment, subject to its statutory exceptions, and Section 25F prescribes conditions precedent to retrenchment; failure to comply renders the retrenchment unlawful.

The Court also referred to the dominant-nature test for determining workman status: classification depends on the predominant nature of the employee’s actual work.

The petitioner’s reliance on McLeod and Co. v. Sixth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal & Ors., 1958 SCC OnLine Cal 17, was held inapplicable to the facts;

it also relied on Srinibas Goradia v. Arvind Kumar Sahu, Civil Appeal No. unspecified of 2025, arising out of SLP (C) No. 3682 of 2025, (2025) INSC 1467.

The Court considered the Tribunal’s award in the context of the subsequent proceeding under Section 33C(2).

The Court found that the Tribunal had made a reasoned finding that Mondal was a workman, contrary to the employer’s contention that the issue had not been determined.

The employer had not appeared before the Tribunal to contest his status or the termination, and had not challenged the reference order; its later request for remittal came after the matter had reached the computation stage.

The Tribunal’s conclusion that the termination constituted retrenchment was supported by the record, which disclosed neither compliance with Section 25F nor a valid disciplinary proceeding.

In those circumstances, the Court found no ground to interfere with either the original award or the impugned award.

The Court declined to set aside or remit the Tribunal’s award, finding no basis to interfere with its findings on Mondal’s workman status or the illegality of his termination.

Connected applications, if any, were disposed of consequentially.