Termination of daily wager completing 240 days service during pending reference warrants reinstatement and regularization.

The petitioner challenged the award dated August 10, 2017, passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (CGIT), Jabalpur.

The workman, Subhash Singh Malakar, was engaged as a daily-wage Jeep Driver on July 28, 1993, against a vacant post following the compulsory retirement of a regular employee.

After approximately twenty years of service, the workman was terminated on May 13, 2013, during the pendency of a reference proceeding regarding his status and privileges.

The management contended that the workman’s name was not sponsored through the Employment Exchange and that he had not completed 240 days of continuous service in a calendar year.

The CGIT ruled in favor of the workman, directing reinstatement with full back-wages and regularization.

1. Whether the management's action in continuing the workman on a daily wage basis since 1993 and depriving him of the status of a permanent employee was legal and justified.

2. Whether the termination of the workman’s services during the pendency of the reference proceeding was legal.

The court applied Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, regarding the reference of disputes to Tribunals.

It further relied on Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which stipulates the conditions precedent (notice and compensation) for the valid retrenchment of a workman who has completed 240 days of continuous service in a calendar year.

The court examined the evidence, noting that the workman successfully established his continuous service through 21 documents, including an experience certificate (Ex. W/1) and numerous payment slips (Ex. W/2 to W/20).

The court found that the management failed to produce any documentary evidence to rebut the workman’s claim of continuous service or to prove he was not working against a sanctioned post.

The court highlighted the management’s witness admission that the workman was engaged to replace a regular driver.

Furthermore, the court noted that the termination was effected during the pendency of the industrial dispute reference, which bypassed the statutory protections afforded to the workman.

Consequently, the High Court determined that the CGIT’s findings were supported by the record and lacked any jurisdictional or legal infirmity.

It held that the termination was illegal and the workman was entitled to the benefits of regularization.

The writ petition was dismissed, upholding the CGIT's award for reinstatement with continuity of service, full back-wages, and regularization on the post of Driver.