2026 Supreme(Del) 1031

2026 DHC 4055
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SHAIL JAIN, J.
Sauraj Singh – Petitioner
Versus
M/S Indian Airlines Ltd And Anr. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 377 of 2013, W.P.(C) 748 of 2013, W.P.(C) 877 of 2013, W.P.(C) 879 of 2013
Decided On : 08-05-2026
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner : Ms. Aayushi Jain, Adv.
For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Mr. Rohan Mandal, Ms. Deeksha Arora, Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Mr. A.S. Rastogi and Mr. Shiv Kant Arora, Advs.

Where retrenchment violates statutory mandates, compensation is an equitable remedy for casual employees. Reinstatement is not an automatic right, and the quantum of monetary relief must be proportional to the actual duration of service to satisfy the principle of proportionality.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Industrial Disputes - Writ jurisdiction against adjudicatory awards - Maintainability - Even if an entity, post-privatization, does not fall under the definition of State under Article 12, the High Court exercises supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 against awards passed by industrial adjudicatory authorities as the challenge is directed against the judicial/quasi-judicial process rather than exclusively against the private employer. (Paras 67-71)

(B) Industrial Disputes - Retrenchment - Section 25-F - Statutory mandatory requirements - Non-compliance - Any workman having completed 240 days of continuous service is entitled to mandatory notice, wages in lieu thereof, and retrenchment compensation; failure to adhere to these statutory conditions renders retrenchment void. (Paras 86, 92)

(C) Relief - Compensation in lieu of reinstatement - Discretionary power - Reinstatement is not an automatic consequence of illegal retrenchment, particularly in cases involving casual or daily-rated employees where long periods have elapsed; monetary compensation reflecting the duration of service is a valid and equitable substitute. (Paras 98, 103, 106)

Facts of the case:
Petitions were filed challenging awards of an industrial adjudicatory authority which granted compensation rather than reinstatement to casual workers. The employer contended that it was no longer a public entity and that the engagement of workers was temporary in nature and initiated pursuant to prior judicial orders. The workmen argued that their termination violated statutory provisions regarding retrenchment and that they were entitled to enhanced relief.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the petitions were maintainable as they challenged the process of the tribunal. The court found that the termination of workers without compliance with the mandatory requirements of law was illegal. However, given the length of time passed and the nature of casual employment, the court concluded that reinstatement was not a workable remedy and that compensation should be enhanced proportionally to the length of service.

Issues: Whether the writ petition is maintainable against an entity that was formerly a public sector undertaking but is now privately held. Whether the award of the tribunal regarding monetary relief in lieu of reinstatement requires interference, specifically regarding the quantum of compensation.

Ratio Decidendi: The High Court ruled that while an entity may not be State under Article 12 post-privatization, the award of an industrial tribunal remains subject to judicial review under Articles 226/227. It held that while illegal retrenchment necessitates compensation under law, reinstatement is not automatic for temporary or casual workers, especially after significant time lapses. Compensation must bear a direct nexus with the duration of service rendered to ensure proportionality.

Result: Petitions allowed; compensation enhanced for workmen based on the duration of service rendered.