Workman With 240 Days Of Continuous Service, Termination Without Notice Is Illegal : HP HC
A Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court comprising Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chander Negi held that termination of a workman who has completed 240 days of continuous service without complying with disciplinary proceedings or notice is illegal, and abandonment of service cannot be presumed in such case. Background Facts The respondent was engaged as...
A Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court comprising Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chander Negi held that termination of a workman who has completed 240 days of continuous service without complying with disciplinary proceedings or notice is illegal, and abandonment of service cannot be presumed in such case.
Background Facts
The respondent was engaged as a Security Guard by the Registrar of Maharishi Markandeshwar Medical College, in October 2012. He continued working there until 7th March 2017, when he proceeded on leave due to the death of his mother. When he returned to duty on 21st March 2017, he was not permitted to join. His services were terminated. The respondent raised an industrial dispute.
A Reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was made to the H.P. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla, to examine the validity of his termination. The Labour Court ruled in respondent's favour. The Registrar challenged the award before a Single Judge by filing a petition, which was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the Registrar filed the Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court.
It was argued by the Registrar that the respondent had been engaged by a contractor, not by the Registrar. Therefore, there was no employer-employee relationship between the parties. It was further contended that the respondent had voluntarily abandoned his job.
The appellant also argued that the Labour Court had wrongly ignored documentary evidence, including a photocopy of an appointment letter and identity card issued by the alleged contractor, and that the respondent had not completed 240 days of continuous service.
On the other hand, it was argued by the respondent that his services were illegally terminated when he returned from leave on 21st March 2017. He further argued that a new worker was engaged in his place, and that juniors were retained after his termination.
Findings and Observations of the Court
It was noted by the court that the respondent had worked continuously from October 2012 till 7th March 2017. He had completed more than 240 days in the 12 calendar months preceding his termination. It was further observed by the court that the Registrar had failed to implead the contractor as a party or produce him as a witness.
It was further observed that no licence in terms of Section 12 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 was placed on record by the Registrar to show that the contractor had a licence issued by the competent authority to deploy contract labour. Moreover, no evidence was led to show that the work of the respondent was being supervised by the contractor.
It was further observed that documentary evidence in the form of appointment letter, identity card, copy of resume, copy of salary statement issued by the Contractor have correctly not been taken into account by the Labour Court as these were mere photocopies nor admissible in evidence and their originals have not been produced. Therefore, it was held that the services of the respondent were engaged by the Registrar, and not by the contractor.
It was held that since the respondent had completed more than 240 days in 12 calendar months preceding his termination, therefore compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act was absolutely required. In the absence of its compliance, the termination was illegal. It was also noted that since another employee was engaged in place of the respondent, therefore, compliance with Section 25-H of the Act was mandatory.
Regarding contention of Registrar that respondent had not reported for work, it was observed by the Division Bench that non reporting for duty is a serious misconduct. However, no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent nor was a notice ever issued by the Registrar on account of the respondent not reporting on duty. Therefore, abandonment cannot be presumed.
It was further observed that the Labour Court had correctly held the respondent to be a “workman” and the appellant to be an “industry”.
With the aforesaid observations, the decision of the Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench. Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the Registrar was dismissed by the Division Bench.
Case Name : Registrar Maharishi Markandeshwar Medical College vs. Padam Kumar
Case No. : LPA No.601 of 2025
Counsel for the Appellant : Sneh Bhimta, Advocate
Counsel for the Respondent : Aakash Thakur, Advocate