A workman seeking protection under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act bears the initial burden of proving continuous service of 240 days in the 12 months preceding termination, failing which claims of violation of provisions regarding seniority or retrenchment cannot be sustained.

****

KULDEEP TIWARI, J.

1) Since awards of even date, rendered by the same learned Labour Court on identical issues, are assailed, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that these writ petitions are amenable to be decided together. Accordingly, both the cases are taken up together. However, for the facility of reference, facts are being derived from CWP-7577-2005.

2) Having received a negative response to his reference, under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (for short, ‘the Act’), vide impugned award dated 02.03.2004, the petitioner-workman has approached this Court by instituting the instant writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

3) Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to mention that when the matter was taken up on 10.11.2025, no one was present on behalf of the petitioner. The position was not any different even on the previous occasion. Therefore, with a view to adjudicate the matter conclusively, which was filed two decades ago, this Court appointed Mr. Sumeet Jain, Advocate, as Legal Aid Counsel, to assist on behalf of the petitioner-workman.

4) In a bid to lay foundation to his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner initiated with the assertion that there is no distinction or categorization with respect to the workman. The source of employment, method of recruitment, contract of service, quantum of wages/pay and mode of payment are not the relevant factors for determination of the issue, as to whether, a person falls within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Act. In this regard, he relied upon a decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur , 2011, 6 SCC 584. Accordingly, he contended that the learned Labour Court grossly erred in law, while answering the reference against the petitioner. He further submitted that long-term engagement of a Daily Paid Worker to perform the duty of perennial nature ought to have been factored in, along with other essential aspects, while analysing the termination order of a workman. However, in the matter at hand, the learned Labour Court failed to appreciate crucial aspect in its right perspective. In this regard, he placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dharam Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and another , 2025 AIR Supreme Court 3897. He invited attention of this Court towards the claim statement, which was eventually culminated into reference, and submitted that it was categorically pleaded that juniors to the petitioner, in the same category, were retained, besides appointing new candidates, post termination of his services, and that too, without issuance of any prior notice. Thus, it is a crystal-clear case of violation of Section 25-G and H of the Act, thereby, entitling him for the relief of reinstatement:-

“b) That my juniors in the same category were retained in service and other employees of same category are being appointed after the termination of my services without sending me prior notice. Thus the respondents have violated the mandatory provisions of section 25-G and 25-H of the I.D.Act.”

5) While concluding, he took this Court through the written statement filed by the respondent-Management, particularly para 7 thereof, to urge that claim of the petitioner was denied only on the ground that since the petitioner was engaged as a Daily Paid Labour, he, by any stretch of imagination, cannot be said to be covered within the ambit of ‘workman’. So much so, the Man