High Court Declines Judicial Review of Labor Award Due to Gross Delay and Lack of Procedural Diligence

The respondent-workman, employed as a watchman by the petitioner since 1999, was terminated on July 24, 2004, allegedly without following the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The petitioner, a contractor for respondent No. 2, did not file a written statement before the Labour Court, and its evidence was discarded as it failed to appear for cross-examination.

On November 24, 2016, the Labour Court held the termination illegal and ordered reinstatement with 30% back-wages.

Following the petitioner’s non-compliance, the Labour Court issued orders in Recovery Applications (C-2 and C-1) in 2022 and 2026, respectively.

The petitioner challenged the original 2016 award and subsequent recovery orders via this writ petition in 2026.

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to quash an award challenged after a gross delay of ten years.

2. Whether the Labour Court's findings regarding illegal termination and the grant of back-wages warrant interference by re-appreciating evidence.

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, which govern the High Court's power to issue writs and its supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts.

The settled principle that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and cannot be exercised in favor of a party guilty of gross delay or laches.

Under Article 227, the High Court cannot act as an appellate court to re-appreciate or reassess evidence unless the lower court’s findings are perverse or patently illegal.

The Court observed that the petitioner remained "in slumber" for ten years after the 2016 reinstatement award was passed, only approaching the High Court once a Recovery Certificate was issued in 2026.

The Court found the explanation regarding financial constraints and lack of knowledge unconvincing, noting that the petitioner had been served and had even filed an initial affidavit in the Reference proceedings.

On the merits, the Court held that the Labour Court’s finding—that the workman had completed 240 days of continuous service and was terminated illegally—was based on the evidence available.

Since the High Court's scope under Articles 226 and 227 is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors or perversity, it refused to disturb the findings of fact or re-evaluate the evidence regarding the workman's employment status or back-wages.

The Court answered the issues in the negative, refusing to quash the 2016 award or the 2022/2026 recovery orders. The petitioner was directed to comply with the Labour Court’s award within four weeks from the receipt of the order.