Facts
The workman (Respondent No. 1) was employed as a watchman by the petitioner from June 1, 1999, until his allegedly illegal termination on July 24, 2004
Source reference: p. 2The petitioner, a contractor for Respondent No. 2, failed to file a written statement or submit to cross-examination during the Labour Court proceedings
Source reference: p. 3, 5-6On November 24, 2016, the Labour Court held the termination illegal and directed reinstatement with 30% back-wages
Source reference: p. 3Following the petitioner’s non-compliance, the Labour Court issued orders in Recovery Applications (C-2 and C-1) in 2022 and 2026, respectively
Source reference: p. 6The petitioner challenged the original 2016 award and subsequent recovery orders in 2026 via a writ petition
Source reference: p. 1-2Issues
1. Whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 to quash a decade-old award and subsequent recovery orders despite gross delay by the petitioner.
Source reference: p. 62. Whether the Labour Court’s findings regarding illegal termination and the grant of 30% back-wages were perverse or legally unsustainable.
Source reference: p. 4, 7Law Applied
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India regarding the High Court's power of judicial review and superintendence
Source reference: p. 1, 6Principle that discretionary relief under writ jurisdiction cannot be granted when there is "gross delay" or laches in approaching the court
Source reference: p. 6Standard of "perversity or illegality," establishing that under Article 227, the High Court cannot re-appreciate or reassess evidence unless the lower court's findings are fundamentally flawed or lack evidentiary support
Source reference: p. 7The procedural requirements for termination under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, specifically the "240 days of continuous service" rule
Source reference: p. 2, 5Reasoning
The Court observed that the petitioner allowed the 2016 reinstatement award to remain unchallenged for ten years, only seeking relief after a Recovery Certificate was issued in 2026
Source reference: p. 6The Court reasoned that such "gross delay" disqualifies the petitioner from seeking equitable relief under Articles 226 and 227
Source reference: p. 6The Court noted that the petitioner failed to contest the original reference or submit to cross-examination, meaning the workman’s evidence regarding 240 days of service and illegal termination stood unrebutted
Source reference: p. 5-6The Court held that it cannot act as an appellate body to re-examine facts or evidence when the Labour Court's findings on the illegality of the termination were based on the available record
Source reference: p. 7Holding
The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court cannot entertain writ petitions marred by gross delay or disturb findings of fact that are not perverse.
The Court answered both issues in the negative, upholding the Labour Court's award and recovery orders. The petitioner was directed to comply with the original award and pay the recovery amounts within four weeks
Source reference: p. 7Original Court PDF
DEEP SECURITIES SERVICES THROUGH ITS OWNERvsBIPIN AMBALAL PARMAR
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in