No 240 Days, No Reinstatement: P&H High Court Upholds Labour Court, Denies Relief to Daily Wage Worker After 20-Year Litigation

Case Name: Salik Ram v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ludhiana

Date of Judgment: 16 April 2026

Citation: CWP-7577-2005 & CWP-8780-2005

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldeep Tiwari

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that a workman must prove completion of 240 days of continuous service in the preceding 12 months to claim protection under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Mere assertion or affidavit is insufficient; absence of documentary evidence defeats the claim. Further, violation of Sections 25-G and 25-H cannot be alleged without proof of seniority or retention of juniors.

Summary: The petitioners, daily wage workers engaged as Tubewell Drivers, challenged Labour Court awards rejecting their claim for reinstatement. They contended that their termination violated Sections 25-F, 25-G, and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, arguing that juniors were retained and fresh appointments were made without notice.

The High Court examined the entire factual matrix spanning decades of litigation and noted that the core issue was whether the petitioners had completed 240 days of service in the relevant period. The Labour Court had relied on muster rolls and evidence to conclude that the petitioners worked only 146 days in one year and 116 days in another, thereby failing to meet the statutory threshold.

The Court affirmed that the burden to prove continuous service lies on the workman. It emphasized that self-serving statements or pleadings cannot substitute for documentary proof such as wage records, muster rolls, or co-worker testimony.

On the issue of alleged violation of Sections 25-G and 25-H, the Court held that the petitioners failed to establish the existence of any seniority list or that juniors were retained. It further noted that the petitioners could not even prove that their services were terminated, as evidence suggested that they had stopped reporting for duty.

The Court also rejected reliance on precedents relating to perennial nature of work, holding that such factors are irrelevant where foundational requirements like continuous service are not met.

Decision: The High Court dismissed both writ petitions, holding that there was no illegality or perversity in the Labour Court’s findings. It concluded that the petitioners were not entitled to reinstatement or any relief, while noting that the Labour Court had already granted limited protection by directing consideration for future employment if vacancies arise.