Writ court declined interference with modest compensation award absent patent illegality or perversity.

The respondent was appointed by the petitioner on 01.10.2014.

He allegedly stopped reporting for duty in June 2015, although he worked until 30.06.2015.

The petitioner subsequently issued him a fresh appointment letter dated 01.08.2015 for the post of Chapka Worker.

Despite this, the respondent raised Reference No. 63 of 2016 on 07.10.2015, alleging oral termination of service.

The respondent attained the age of superannuation, namely 58 years, on 17.12.2015.

By award dated 06.05.2023, the Labour Court, Surat awarded him lump-sum compensation of ₹1,25,000.

The employer challenged that award under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

Whether the Labour Court’s award of ₹1,25,000 as compensation for alleged illegal oral termination suffered from patent illegality, perversity, or an error warranting interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution?

Whether the respondent’s alleged abandonment of employment, the fresh appointment offer dated 01.08.2015, and his subsequent superannuation justified setting aside the compensation awarded by the Labour Court?

The Court applied the limited scope of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, under which factual findings of a Labour Court are not ordinarily interfered with unless they are shown to be perverse, arbitrary, or patently illegal.

The Court also considered the industrial-law principles concerning alleged oral termination, abandonment of service, reinstatement, and monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

However, it did not finally adjudicate the merits of those competing claims, expressly deciding the petition on account of the small amount involved, the respondent’s superannuation, and the absence of patent illegality or perversity in the award.

The employer contended that the respondent had voluntarily abandoned service, had been offered fresh employment, and had subsequently reached the age of superannuation; therefore, no compensation was payable.

The respondent disputed abandonment and maintained that his service had been orally terminated without compliance with the applicable safeguards under industrial law.

The High Court noted that the Labour Court had awarded only ₹1,25,000 as lump-sum compensation and found no patent illegality or perversity warranting exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Given the limited monetary value of the dispute and the respondent’s attainment of superannuation, the Court declined to re-examine the merits of the Labour Court’s factual conclusions.

The petitioner was directed to deposit the awarded compensation of ₹1,25,000 within six weeks from receipt of a copy of the order.

The Court clarified that its decision was based on the smallness of the amount and therefore would not be treated as a precedent.