Illegal termination does not automatically entitle reinstatement where no post exists.

The petitioner worked as a casual daily-wage employee with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi from 23 September 1998 until his termination in October 1999.

The Labour Court held that his termination was illegal because, despite his having worked for 240 days, the requirements of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, had not been complied with.

However, considering that he had worked for only one year, was paid minimum wages, and that no post existed against which he could be absorbed, the Labour Court awarded him lump-sum compensation of ₹12,000 instead of reinstatement.

The petitioner challenged the relief portion of the award, seeking reinstatement with continuity of service, full back wages, and consequential benefits.

He also contended that certain juniors or co-workers had been retained and regularised.

The High Court restored the petition and heard it on merits.

The Court applied the principle that jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 is supervisory and not appellate; interference with Labour Court findings is warranted only where they are patently perverse, unsupported by evidence, or such that no reasonable person could have reached them.

It applied Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which requires compliance with prescribed conditions before retrenchment of a workman who has completed the requisite period of continuous service.

The Court further held that a finding of illegal termination does not automatically create a right to reinstatement, particularly where no post exists for absorption.

In support of the limited scope of judicial review, the Court relied on International Airport Authority of India v. International Air Cargo Workers Union, (2009) 13 SCC 374.

The Labour Court’s finding that the termination violated Section 25-F was not challenged as perverse; however, that finding alone did not mandate reinstatement.

The petitioner had worked for only one year as a casual daily wager, had been paid minimum wages, and failed to establish the existence of a sanctioned or available post against which he could be absorbed.

Since the Labour Court’s decision to award compensation was a plausible view based on the material before it, no ground for interference under Articles 226 or 227 was made out.

The alleged regularisation of juniors or co-workers did not justify reinstatement or regularisation in the petitioner’s case in the absence of an available post.

Nevertheless, considering that the termination occurred in 1999 and the dispute had remained pending for more than two decades, the Court considered it appropriate to grant an additional ₹50,000 and to direct payment of the original ₹12,000 compensation with interest if it had not already been paid.

It modified the award by directing the MCD to pay the petitioner an additional ₹50,000 within four weeks.

The original compensation of ₹12,000, if unpaid, was directed to be paid with simple interest at 9% per annum from the date of the award until disbursement.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of along with the pending applications.