Pump Attendant’s Reinstatement Bid Fails: P&H HC Upholds Award, Finding No Proof Of 240 Days’ Service In Year Before Termination

The petitioner claimed that he worked as a Pump Attendant/Keyman from 2012 until 6 November 2017, had completed more than 240 days of service, and was terminated without compliance with the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

He also alleged that junior workers were retained and fresh hands engaged.

The respondent-management maintained that the work was performed through enlisted contractors and denied directly employing the petitioner.

The Labour Court dismissed his claim, finding the principal issue against him; he challenged that award under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution

Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act defines the continuous service relevant to Section 25-F; a claim of 240 days, without sufficient proof of the requisite continuous service in the relevant twelve-month period, does not by itself establish entitlement to Section 25-F protection

The fact that an employer entrusts work to contractors does not, without evidence establishing the nature and terms of an individual’s engagement, prove that the person was directly employed by that employer

Alleged breaches of Sections 25-G and 25-H must be supported by evidence

Under Articles 226 and 227, the High Court exercises supervisory, not appellate, jurisdiction and does not reappraise evidence absent patent illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error, or a decision based on no evidence

The petitioner’s assertion of long service did not satisfactorily establish the continuous service required under Section 25-B in the twelve months immediately before termination

The management’s acknowledgment that the work was performed through contractors was not an admission that it had directly employed the petitioner; its pleaded position and its witness’s testimony supported the contrary view

The petitioner also did not sufficiently substantiate the allegations concerning junior workers or fresh engagements.

Even accepting his asserted designation for consideration, that distinction did not establish direct employment or entitlement to reinstatement

The petitioner failed to demonstrate any supervisory-review ground for disturbing the Labour Court’s findings

Finding no ground for interference, it dismissed the writ petition and left the award dated 22 March 2019 undisturbed