Daily-wage workers must prove 240 days’ service to invoke Section 25F protection.

The petitioners were engaged by the District Panchayat as daily-wage workers for road repairs, tree-cutting and other miscellaneous work.

They claimed to have worked continuously for more than 12 years and alleged that their services were terminated without complying with the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Their services were discontinued with effect from 1 November 1990.

The Labour Court, Palanpur, dismissed their industrial reference, Reference (L.C.P.) No. 214 of 1996, by order dated 1 April 2008.

The petitioners challenged that decision under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The respondent contended that the petitioners were engaged temporarily and intermittently, depending upon the availability of work and funds, and had not completed 240 days of work during the relevant preceding year.

Whether the petitioners established that they had completed 240 days of work during the 12 months preceding termination so as to claim protection under Sections 25B and 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Whether the petitioners were entitled to invoke Sections 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act in the absence of evidence of unlawful retrenchment, retention of junior employees, or subsequent appointments.

Whether the petitioners fulfilled the conditions of the Government Resolution dated 17 October 1988 so as to claim regularisation and consequential benefits.

Whether the Labour Court’s findings were perverse or otherwise warranted interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The Court applied Sections 25B, 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Section 25B requires a workman seeking the benefit of Section 25F to establish continuous service, ordinarily including actual work for at least 240 days in the preceding 12 months; Section 25F prescribes notice, retrenchment compensation and notice to the appropriate Government as conditions precedent to retrenchment; Section 25G embodies the “last come, first go” principle; and Section 25H gives retrenched workmen preference in re-employment where the employer proposes to make fresh appointments.

The Court relied on State of M.P. v. Arjanlal Rajak, (2006) 2 SCC 429, for the principle that a mere assertion of long service is insufficient and that the workman must produce positive and reliable evidence establishing the requisite period of continuous service.

The Court further applied the limited scope of review under Articles 226 and 227, under which interference is unwarranted where the Labour Court’s findings are supported by evidence and are neither perverse nor patently illegal.

The Government Resolution dated 17 October 1988 could confer benefits only upon satisfaction of its prescribed conditions.

The Court held that the petitioners bore the burden of establishing the statutory foundation for protection under Section 25F, particularly by proving that they had actually worked for 240 days during the relevant 12-month period preceding 1 November 1990.

Their pleadings and assertions of having worked for more than 12 years were not, by themselves, sufficient.

The petitioners failed to produce convincing oral or documentary evidence proving 240 days of work, whereas the respondent produced muster rolls indicating that the requisite threshold had not been met.

Consequently, the protection under Section 25F was unavailable.

The claims under Sections 25G and 25H also failed because there was no sufficient evidence that junior employees had been retained, that third parties had been appointed in the petitioners’ place, or that the respondent had subsequently proposed fresh appointments.

The Court further found that the petitioners had not established the factual conditions necessary to claim regularisation under the Government Resolution dated 17 October 1988.

Although the Panchayat’s decision to entrust road-maintenance work to contractors was not independently conclusive of the legality of termination, it assumed relevance when considered alongside the muster rolls and the absence of contrary evidence.

Since the Labour Court’s findings were evidence-based and not perverse, the High Court declined to reappreciate the evidence in writ jurisdiction.

It held that they had failed to prove the continuous service required under Sections 25B and 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and had not established violations of Sections 25G or 25H or entitlement under the Government Resolution dated 17 October 1988.

Finding no perversity, patent illegality or jurisdictional error in the Labour Court’s dismissal of Reference (L.C.P.) No. 214 of 1996, the Court dismissed the Special Civil Application, declined interference under Articles 226 and 227, and discharged the Rule.