High Court jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 is limited by gross delay and non-perverse factual findings.

The respondent-workman was employed as a watchman by the petitioner-contractor from July 16, 2003, until his termination on July 24, 2004

The petitioner held a labor contract with respondent No. 2 (Executive Engineer) during this period.

Claiming illegal termination without following the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the workman approached the Labour Court.

The petitioner failed to file a written statement and did not present itself for cross-examination, leading the Labour Court to pass an award on November 24, 2016, directing reinstatement with 30% back-wages

The petitioner failed to comply with the award for nearly ten years, during which the workman successfully obtained orders in Recovery (C-2) and Recovery (C-1) applications in 2022 and 2026, respectively

The petitioner challenged the original award and subsequent recovery orders through this writ petition.

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to quash an award and recovery orders despite a gross delay of ten years by the petitioner?

2. Whether the Labour Court’s finding of illegal termination and the grant of 30% back-wages warrants interference due to alleged lack of evidence?

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, regarding the High Court’s power of judicial review and superintendence

The court relied on the principle that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked when there is gross delay and laches in approaching the court

The court applied the principle that in exercising supervisory jurisdiction, the High Court cannot act as an appellate court to re-appreciate or reassess evidence unless the lower court's findings are perverse or illegal

The procedural requirements for termination under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, specifically the "240 days" rule, also underpinned the original award

The Court observed that the petitioner was served in the original Reference proceedings but chose not to contest it effectively, leading to the 2016 award

The Court found that the petitioner "sat tight" over the order of reinstatement and back-wages for a decade, only approaching the High Court after a Recovery Certificate for Rs. 2,99,823/- was issued in 2026

The Court reasoned that such gross delay precludes the exercise of discretionary writ jurisdiction.

Regarding the merits, the Court noted that the Labour Court’s findings were based on the workman's continuous service of 240 days and the petitioner’s failure to cross-examine or rebut the claim

Since the findings were not found to be perverse or illegal, the Court declined to re-evaluate the evidence regarding the work contract or the workman’s unemployment status

The Court answered both issues in the negative, refusing to interfere with the award dated November 24, 2016, or the recovery orders dated December 16, 2022, and March 10, 2026.

The petitioner was directed to comply with the Labour Court’s award within four weeks of receipt of the order