Can a workman challenge a retrenchment award under Article 227 without proving 240 days’ service and despite a 14½-year delay?

Does the High Court’s dismissal reaffirm the settled principle that a workman must establish 240 days of service and raise an industrial dispute within a reasonable period, making its decision binding authority in labour adjudication?

Summary

Practical Impact

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

• Reaffirms that a workman must lead concrete evidence to establish at least 240 days of service in a calendar year to maintain a retrenchment claim under the Industrial Disputes Act.
• Confirms that an unexplained delay of over 14 years in raising an industrial dispute is fatal to the claim.
• Clarifies the narrow scope of Article 227 in labour matters—interference is permissible only in cases of perversity or patent illegality.
• Serves as binding authority in Rajasthan for dismissals based on failure of proof and inordinate delay.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

1. Burden of Proof for 240 Days
   • The Labour Court correctly applied the settled principle that it is incumbent upon the workman to prove service of at least 240 days in the relevant calendar year.
   • Mere assertions in the statement of claim, without supporting evidence, cannot sustain a claim under the ID Act.
2. Delay in Raising Dispute
   • An inordinate delay of about 14½ years was not explained by the workman.
   • Such unexplained delay is fatal since the ID Act envisions prompt resolution of industrial disputes.
3. Scope of Article 227
   • The High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction is confined to correction of perversity or patent illegality in the award.
   • No perversity or illegality was demonstrated; hence, the award stood unassailable.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner (Workman)

• Claimed appointment as cattle guard since August 1982 and retrenchment in July 1988.
• Asserted service of over 240 days in the relevant year.
• Contended that the Labour Court misappreciated evidence and that delay should be condoned.

Respondents (Forest Department & Labour Court)

• Maintained that no evidence was led to prove 240 days’ service.
• Argued that a 14½-year delay in raising the dispute is inordinate and unexplained.
• Supported the dismissal of the statement of claim and opposed interference under Article 227.

Factual Background

A workman appointed as a cattle guard on 01.08.1982 alleged retrenchment by a verbal order dated 01.07.1988 in violation of the ID Act. He filed a reference in Labour Court in 2003 claiming reinstatement, but led no evidence to prove he had worked 240 days in the relevant calendar year and failed to explain the 14½-year delay. The Labour Court dismissed his claim by an award dated 18.06.2010. On Article 227 review, the High Court upheld the award for lack of proof and inordinate delay.

Statutory Analysis

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

• Requires proof of 240 days of service in the relevant year for retrenchment claims under Section 25F.
• Envisages early reference to a labour court to avoid stale disputes.

Constitution of India, Article 227

• Confers supervisory jurisdiction on High Courts to correct perversity or patent illegality.
• Does not permit reappreciation of evidence or findings on merits in absence of such fault.

Alert Indicators

• ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms settled principles on proof burden and delay.
• 📅 Time-Sensitive – Emphasizes strict timelines for raising industrial disputes.

Citations

[2025:RJ-JP:34086]