Retrenchment protection for workmen: contractual or temporary engagement does not defeat reinstatement when Section 25F is violated.

Termination of a workman's service, even under a contractual or temporary engagement, was held to constitute retrenchment unless it fell within a statutory exception. Continuous engagement for more than 240 days, coupled with discontinuance without notice or retrenchment compensation and no material to attract Section 2(oo)(bb), brought the case within Section 25F, so reinstatement was justified. The High Court, acting under Article 226, was held not entitled to reappreciate evidence or interfere with the Labour Court's factual findings absent jurisdictional error or patent illegality. Its interference was therefore unwarranted, and the reinstatement award was restored with consequential back wages as specified.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant's termination amounted to retrenchment attracting the protection of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and whether he fell within the definition of workman under Section 2(s) of that Act; (ii) Whether the High Court exceeded the limits of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in setting aside the Labour Court's award of reinstatement.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant's termination amounted to retrenchment attracting the protection of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and whether he fell within the definition of workman under Section 2(s) of that Act.

Analysis: The definition of retrenchment under Section 2(oo) is wide and covers termination for any reason except the statutory exclusions. The definition of workman under Section 2(s) is also comprehensive and is not confined to regular, permanent, or full-time employment; source of appointment, method of recruitment, and contractual label do not determine the character of the employee. The record showed continuous engagement of the appellant for more than 240 days, and his service was discontinued without notice or retrenchment compensation. No material was produced to bring the case within the exclusion in Section 2(oo)(bb).

Conclusion: The appellant was a workman, and his termination amounted to retrenchment in violation of Section 25F; the Labour Court's award of reinstatement was justified.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court exceeded the limits of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in setting aside the Labour Court's award of reinstatement.

Analysis: Certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 is supervisory and does not permit the High Court to reappreciate evidence or act as an appellate court. The Labour Court had recorded findings on the factual questions within its jurisdiction, and the High Court did not identify any jurisdictional error or error apparent on the face of the record. Instead, it interfered on considerations of alleged irregular initial appointment and delay, which were not lawful grounds to annul the award once violation of Section 25F had been found. The High Court's approach was inconsistent with the settled limits of writ review.

Conclusion: The High Court's interference was unwarranted and its order could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The Labour Court's reinstatement award stood restored, and the appellant was entitled to consequential back wages for the period specified by the Court upon reinstatement within the time granted.

Ratio Decidendi: Termination of a workman's service, even under a contractual or temporary engagement, amounts to retrenchment unless it squarely falls within a statutory exception, and a writ court cannot set aside a Labour Court's factual findings on reinstatement without showing jurisdictional error or patent illegality.

---