Oral termination without statutory compensation is illegal retrenchment absent a written fixed-term contract.

The petitioner was appointed as a Pump Driver by the respondent department in 2012 following a resolution by the President-in-Council

He later served as an Assistant Incharge at Jan Mitra Kendra, completing over four years of continuous service

On July 8, 2016, the petitioner’s services were terminated via an oral order without written notice, retrenchment compensation, or a domestic inquiry

The petitioner challenged this termination before the Labour Court No. 1, Gwalior, under Section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act (IDA), 1947, but his application for reinstatement was rejected on August 23, 2023

The Labour Court viewed the engagement as purely contractual

The petitioner subsequently filed this Writ Petition, claiming the termination was illegal and seeking parity with a similarly situated employee, Mr. Dalveer Singh Yadav, who had been reinstated by the same respondent

1. Whether the petitioner's oral termination constitutes "retrenchment" under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

2. Whether the termination was illegal due to non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

3. Whether the denial of reinstatement violated the petitioner’s right to parity under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India

Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which defines "retrenchment" as the termination of service for any reason whatsoever, excluding specific exceptions like the non-renewal of a fixed-term contract under clause (bb)

Section 25F of the Act, which mandates that no workman employed for more than one year shall be retrenched without one month’s notice (or pay in lieu) and retrenchment compensation

The constitutional principles of parity and non-arbitrariness under Articles 14 and 16, and the principles of natural justice regarding the necessity of a domestic inquiry or notice before termination

The court found that the petitioner had rendered more than four years of continuous service

It held that the Labour Court erred in classifying the termination as a contractual expiry under Section 2(oo)(bb) because the respondent failed to produce a written contract or documentary evidence of a fixed-term appointment

Consequently, the termination qualified as "retrenchment" under the general definition of Section 2(oo)

Since the respondent admitted that no notice was issued and no compensation was paid, the court found a per se violation of the mandatory statutory requirements of Section 25F

The court further observed that the petitioner was entitled to parity, as a similarly situated employee (Dalveer Singh Yadav) had been reinstated by the respondent under identical circumstances; thus, treating the petitioner differently was arbitrary and discriminatory

The court held that the oral termination was illegal, unjustified, and in violation of statutory procedures

The respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith with continuity of service, all consequential benefits, and back wages to be paid within three months

No order as to costs was made