Continuous service findings under Article 136 and Section 17B payments remain protected from recovery after employer success.

SC treated the finding that the workman had not completed the statutory period of continuous service as a factual determination and held that, absent perversity, legal error, or evidentiary infirmity, it was not open to fresh reassessment in appeal under Article 136. It also affirmed that payments made to a workman under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act during pendency of litigation are independent statutory relief and are not recoverable merely because the employer ultimately succeeds in the main dispute. The challenge to the continuous service finding failed, while protection against recovery of the Section 17B was maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the finding that the workman had not been in continuous service for one year could be disturbed in appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether the amount paid to the workman under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 during pendency of litigation was recoverable after the employer succeeded.

Issue (i): Whether the finding that the workman had not been in continuous service for one year could be disturbed in appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The dispute turned on whether the workman satisfied the statutory requirement of continuous service for one year under Section 6N of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The High Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, reappreciated the material and reversed the award of the Industrial Tribunal by holding that the requirement was not met. That determination was treated as a finding of fact. In the absence of perversity, violation of law, or any evidentiary infirmity, such a finding was not open to fresh evaluation in appeal under Article 136.

Conclusion: The finding against the workman on continuous service was upheld and the challenge on that issue failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the amount paid to the workman under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 during pendency of litigation was recoverable after the employer succeeded.

Analysis: Payments made under Section 17B are in the nature of independent statutory relief during pendency of proceedings and do not depend upon the final outcome of the main dispute. Once paid, such amounts are not recoverable merely because the employer ultimately succeeds in challenging the award or termination order. The direction protecting the workman from recovery was consistent with that settled principle.

Conclusion: The amount paid under Section 17B was held to be non-recoverable, and the workman succeeded on this limited issue.

Final Conclusion: The appeals did not warrant interference with the setting aside of the award, though the protection against recovery of the Section 17B payments was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: A factual finding on statutory continuous service, absent perversity or legal error, is not open to fresh reassessment under Article 136, and amounts paid under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are not recoverable after final success of the employer in the main proceedings.

---