Regularization of a long-serving worker upheld where the tribunal’s award disclosed no infirmity.

G. Venkatesan brought an industrial dispute under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, seeking regularisation, continuity of service, back wages and other attendant benefits

The Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai, allowed his claim, directing regularisation from the date of removal or denial of service, reinstatement within three months and payment of 50% back wages with consequential benefits

The Union of India and the Senior Manager, Mail Motor Service, challenged that order under Article 226 of the Constitution

1. Whether the Tribunal’s direction to regularise Venkatesan’s service and grant consequential relief suffered from an infirmity warranting interference under Article 226

2. Whether the Tribunal’s reliance on the cited Supreme Court decisions supported its award in the circumstances of the case

The dispute arose under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the High Court reviewed the Tribunal’s award under Article 226 of the Constitution

The Tribunal relied on Jaggo v. Union of India, SLP No. 5580 of 2024, 2024 SCC OnLine 3826, and Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine 221, concerning prolonged temporary or daily-wage employment and regularisation

The High Court did not set out a separate test from those authorities; it held that the Tribunal’s regularisation order disclosed no infirmity warranting writ interference

The High Court noted that the Tribunal had considered the documentary evidence and relied on the cited Supreme Court decisions

It found no sufficient infirmity in the Tribunal’s order directing regularisation and associated relief to justify interference under Article 226, and therefore declined to disturb the award

No costs were ordered, and the connected writ miscellaneous petition was closed