Writ petition challenging ₹70,000 labour compensation dismissed without examining merits; all grounds left open.

The respondent-workman had served the petitioner-employer as a watchman for approximately seven years.

His services were orally terminated on 16 June 2015.

He consequently raised Reference (L.C.V.) No. 102 of 2016 before the Labour Court, Valsad, seeking reinstatement.

The Labour Court allowed the reference but, instead of reinstatement, directed the employer to pay lump-sum compensation of ₹70,000.

The State challenged that award under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, contending that the workman had not completed 240 days of service in the preceding twelve months and therefore the statutory protection against retrenchment was not attracted.

Whether the Labour Court erred in awarding ₹70,000 as compensation by failing to consider that the respondent-workman had not completed 240 days of service during the twelve calendar months preceding termination, allegedly rendering Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 inapplicable?

Whether the High Court should interfere under Articles 226 and 227 with the Labour Court’s award?

The petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, which confer writ and supervisory jurisdiction upon the High Court.

The dispute concerned the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, particularly Section 25B relating to “continuous service” and the requirement of 240 days’ service preceding termination, as relied upon by the petitioner.

However, the High Court did not adjudicate the merits of the Section 25B or 240-day issue.

It applied the discretionary principle that, having regard to the small amount involved—₹70,000—it could decline interference without examining the substantive grounds, while keeping those grounds open.

The Court further clarified that the dismissal was confined to the facts of the case and would not operate as a precedent.

The High Court noted the petitioner’s contention that the workman had not completed 240 days of service and that the Labour Court had misinterpreted Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Nevertheless, instead of determining whether the statutory requirement was satisfied or whether the Labour Court’s award was legally erroneous, the Court exercised restraint because the impugned award was limited to compensation of ₹70,000.

Thus, the petition was dismissed on the ground of the limited monetary value of the dispute, with all grounds raised by the petitioner expressly kept open.

The Court did not affirm the Labour Court’s reasoning on the merits and made the order non-precedential.

The Labour Court’s direction to pay ₹70,000 as compensation therefore remained operative.

The petitioner-employer was directed to deposit/pay the compensation to the respondent-workman within six weeks from the date of judgment, if it had not already been deposited.

Any interim relief stood vacated, and the Court clarified that the decision would not be treated as a precedent.