P&H: Refuses to interfere with Labour Court award as petitioner failed to establish requisite period of termination

punjab-haryana
⚖️ Order Date: 24 Sep 2026
Headnotes

(i) Constitution of India, Arts. 226, 227, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, S.25B — Writ jurisdiction — Labour Court award — High Court does not ordinarily sit in appeal over findings of fact recorded by Labour Court — Interference is warranted only where findings are perverse, based...

(ii) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, S.25B — Continuous service — Labour Court considered documentary material produced by both sides and found that the petitioner failed to establish the requisite period of continuous service preceding the alleged termination — Petitioners assertion of continuous employement and termination could...

(iii) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, S.25B — Continuous service — Illegal termination — Casual engagement — Petitioner failed to establish that he was directly employed by management from 01.10.1988 — Material on record disclosed intermittent casual engagements and there was no satisfactory independent evidence establishing...

(iv) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, S.25B — Continuous service — Illegal termination — Delay — Alleged termination took place on 30.4.1999, whereas demand notice was raised only in or around September, 2004, after lapse of about five-and-a-half years — No satisfactory explanation for such delay...


Facts of the Case

P&H: Refuses to interfere with Labour Court award as petitioner failed to establish requisite period of termination

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Vinod Kumar challenging a Labour Court award that had rejected his claim for reinstatement, continuity of service and back wages against M/s Escorts Ltd. and another respondent.

Vinod Kumar had claimed that he was appointed as a helper on daily wages in 1988 and worked continuously until 30 April 1999, when his services were allegedly terminated without notice, retrenchment compensation or hearing. He argued that the termination violated the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The management disputed this version. It said Kumar had first worked intermittently under a...

Login required to open full judgment PDF
Login to Access File