P&H HC Upholds Ward Boy’s Firing After 6½ Years For Unexplained Absence, Finding Section 25-F Inapplicable Under His Contract’s Notice-Pay Clause

The petitioner was appointed as a Ward Boy under the Annapurna Food Project in August 2010 on contractual terms permitting termination on one month’s notice or payment in lieu.

His services were terminated on 23 January 2017 for absence and alleged misconduct.

He contended that he had completed more than 240 days of service, that his absence was medically justified, and that the termination violated Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The Labour Court rejected his reference, finding that the termination was in accordance with the contractual terms, fell within Section 2(oo)(bb), and that one month’s salary had been paid in lieu of notice.

The workman then challenged the award under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution

Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 excludes from the definition of “retrenchment” termination resulting from non-renewal of a contract or termination in accordance with a stipulation contained in the contract of employment; Section 25-F’s retrenchment safeguards therefore do not apply where the termination falls within that exception.

In exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, the High Court does not sit as an appellate court to reappreciate evidence or substitute its conclusions merely because another view is possible. Interference with a Labour Court award is warranted where its findings are perverse, unsupported by evidence, patently illegal, or affected by an error of jurisdiction

The Court relied on the appointment order, which expressly permitted termination on one month’s notice or payment in lieu, and on the Labour Court’s finding that one month’s salary was paid by cheque on the date of termination.

The Labour Court had also considered the attendance record, notices, inquiry material, and the medical documents; those documents did not establish justification for the workman’s absence throughout the relevant period, particularly December 2016.

The petitioner did not show that material evidence had been ignored or that the findings were unsupported or perverse.

His service duration, by itself, did not displace the contractual termination clause or establish a ground for supervisory interference

It found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it, leaving the Labour Court’s award undisturbed.

Any pending civil miscellaneous applications were also disposed of