P&H HC Upholds Contract Worker’s Reinstatement And 25% Back Wages After Employer Witness Admitted Management Ended His Service Before Contract Expiry

The workman was engaged by the Corporation on daily-wage and later contractual terms. His last appointment was for the period from 8 August 2000 to 22 September 2001; the Corporation maintained that he stopped attending work on 19 September 2001 and that his engagement ended under the contract.

The workman had earlier brought a civil suit challenging the cessation of his employment, which was dismissed in 2008; his appeal was dismissed in 2009. He issued a demand notice in October 2012.

The Industrial Tribunal found in his favour and directed reinstatement with continuity of service and 25% back wages. The Corporation challenged that award under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act excludes from “retrenchment” termination resulting from non-renewal of a contract upon its expiry, or termination in accordance with a stipulation in the contract; whether the exception applies depends on the nature of the engagement and the circumstances of cessation, not merely the contractual label.

Where cessation constitutes retrenchment and the workman has completed the requisite continuous service, Section 25-F requires compliance with its mandatory conditions.

Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. v. Mamni, (2006) 9 SCC 434, supports a contextual application of Section 2(oo)(bb).

Under Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K.P. Madhavankutty, (2000) 2 SCC 455, a stale industrial dispute cannot be revived merely by making a reference, notwithstanding the absence of a prescribed limitation period; Prabhakar v. Joint Director, Sericulture Department, (2015) 15 SCC 1, confirms that delay, laches and acquiescence are relevant, alongside the workman’s conduct and pursuit of the grievance before another forum.

Section 2A(3)’s three-year period for a direct application does not mechanically invalidate a reference made under Section 10.

Review under Articles 226 and 227 is supervisory: an award is not to be interfered with merely because another view is possible, absent perversity, patent illegality, jurisdictional error or an approach contrary to law.

The contractual period was due to end on 22 September 2001, but the Corporation’s own case was that the workman stopped attending on 19 September, before expiry. More significantly, its witness admitted that the workman had served from 8 August 2000 to 19 September 2001, had worked more than 240 days in the relevant calendar year, received no notice or compensation, and had been dispensed with pursuant to directions from higher authorities.

The Tribunal was therefore entitled to find that cessation was attributable to the Corporation rather than merely the automatic expiry or non-renewal of the contract, and that Section 25-F had not been complied with.

As to delay, the workman had challenged the cessation through civil proceedings shortly after it occurred, and the Tribunal limited back wages to 25% from the date of the demand notice rather than awarding them from the date of cessation. In those circumstances, delay did not make the reference unsustainable.

No ground for supervisory interference was established.

The writ petition was dismissed, and the Tribunal’s award of reinstatement with continuity of service and 25% back wages was upheld.