Workman Fails To Prove 240 Days Continuous Work; Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Denial Of Reinstatement For "Abandonment Of Service"

"Trite to say that this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, does not sit as a Court of appeal over the findings recorded by the Labour Court. Interference is warranted only when the findings suffer from patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error." Punjab & Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling, held that a workman who fails to establish 240 days of continuous service in the preceding calendar year cannot claim protection against retrenchment under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

A bench of Justice Kirti Singh observed that an employee's continuous unauthorized absence constitutes an "abandonment of service," thereby legally precluding claims of illegal termination or wrongful retrenchment by the management.

The petitioner was engaged as a carpenter with a Trust from September 2014 to July 2015, after which he claimed his services were orally and illegally terminated without mandatory notice or retrenchment compensation. The Labour Court, however, found that the petitioner had remained unauthorizedly absent for 85 days, failing to complete the requisite 240 days of service, and awarded a lump sum compensation of ₹30,000 instead of reinstatement. Aggrieved by the denial of reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages, the petitioner approached the High Court through a writ petition.

The primary question before the court was whether the petitioner’s separation from employment amounted to illegal retrenchment in violation of Sections 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The court was also called upon to determine whether the Labour Court erred in denying reinstatement and instead awarding a lump sum compensation based on the totality of circumstances.

Burden Of Proof Rests Squarely On The Workman

Relying on established jurisprudence, the court emphasized that to attract the statutory protections of Section 25F, the primary burden lies on the workman to prove continuous service. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Surendranagar District Panchayat Vs. Dahyabhai Amarsinh, the bench reiterated that the conditions laid down in Section 25B are cumulative. The court noted that a workman must lead cogent evidence to demonstrate continuous employment for not less than one year immediately preceding the date of alleged retrenchment.

Continuous Unauthorized Absence Is Abandonment Of Service

Examining the factual findings of the lower tribunal, the bench noted the Labour Court's reliance on the attendance register, which demonstrated a clear pattern of continuous unauthorized absence. The court observed that the petitioner had been absent for 85 days during a span of merely ten months, including significant absences in May and June 2015. The bench concurred with the finding that this conduct squarely amounted to an abandonment of service by the petitioner, completely negating the theory of illegal termination.

No Violation Of 'Last Come, First Go' Principle

The court systematically addressed the petitioner's argument regarding the subsequent hiring of another employee, allegedly in violation of Section 25G of the Act. The bench upheld the Labour Court's finding that the new engagement occurred only after the petitioner's established pattern of continuous unauthorized absence. Consequently, the court found no violation of the statutory rules governing seniority and retrenchment.

> "...engagement of one Sonu, in July 2015 came after, and consequent upon, this pattern of continuous unauthorised absence, and was accordingly a case of abandonment of service by the petitioner rather than illegal termination..."

Strict Limitations On Writ Jurisdiction

The High Court firmly reiterated the settled legal position regarding the scope of judicial review over Labour Court awards under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The bench emphasized that the High Court does not function as an appellate forum to reappreciate evidence or substitute its own views for those of the tribunal. The court held that the lump sum compensation of ₹30,000 awarded by the Labour Court was fairly adequate based on the circumstances surrounding the brief employment and subsequent termination.

Finding no patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error in the impugned award, the High Court declined to interfere with the Labour Court's reasoned decision. The writ petition seeking reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages was consequently dismissed for lack of merit.

Date of Decision: 22 July 2026