HP High Court Dismisses Medical College's Appeal Against Reinstatement of Security Guard Terminated Without Following Industrial Disputes Act

A Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court upheld concurrent findings that a security guard's termination without Section 25-F compliance was illegal, rejecting the college's contractor-engagement defence.

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh has dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal filed by the Registrar of Maharishi Markandeshwar Medical College and Hospital, challenging the reinstatement of a security guard whose services were terminated in March 2017. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chander Negi, with the judgment authored by Justice Bipin Chander Negi, found no reason to disturb the concurrent findings of the HP Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla and the learned Single Judge. The college had argued that the guard was engaged through a contractor and had abandoned his post, but both forums below had rejected those contentions. The Division Bench agreed, holding that the termination without compliance with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was illegal.

The Dispute Before the High Court

Padam Kumar was engaged as a Security Guard by Maharishi Markandeshwar Medical College and Hospital in October 2012. He continued in that role until 21 March 2017. According to his claim before the Labour Court, he had proceeded on leave on 7 March 2017 following the death of his mother. When he returned to duty on 21 March 2017, he was not permitted to rejoin and his services were terminated.

A reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was received by the HP Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla, vide notification dated 22 June 2018. The reference required the Labour Court to examine the validity of the termination and the consequential relief to be granted.

In his claim petition, Padam Kumar alleged violations of Section 25-F (mandatory retrenchment procedure), Section 25-G (seniority in retrenchment), and Section 25-H (re-employment of retrenched workmen) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The college denied any employer-employee relationship, contended it was not an “industry” under the Act, and asserted that the guard had abandoned his post voluntarily.

The Labour Court passed its award on 20 January 2024, ruling in favour of Padam Kumar. The college challenged that award before a Single Judge in CWP No. 5957 of 2024, which was dismissed on 11 December 2024. The present Letters Patent Appeal was the college's third attempt to overturn those findings.

Issues Framed and Evidence Led

The Labour Court framed six issues, covering: whether the termination violated Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H; whether the claim was maintainable; whether Padam Kumar was a “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Act; whether the petition was bad for non-joinder of a necessary party; and whether the college fell within the definition of “industry” under the Act.

Padam Kumar appeared as the sole witness in support of his claim. The college led evidence through one Shri Ajay Singhal, its Registrar, who filed an affidavit. Both witnesses were cross-examined.

The college placed on record several documents to support its contractor-engagement defence: a photocopy of an appointment letter (Exhibit RW1/C) allegedly issued by a contractor dated 4 February 2016, an identity card allegedly issued by the contractor (Exhibit RW1/B), a copy of a resume (Exhibit RW1/G), salary statements (Exhibits RW1/H, RW1/K, and RX-2). Every one of these documents was a photocopy. The originals were never produced before the Labour Court.

Why the Contractor Defence Failed

The Division Bench examined the contractor-engagement argument in detail and found it wholly unsupported by evidence.

The Labour Court had correctly ignored the photocopy of the appointment letter, Exhibit RW1/C, because the original was never produced. In cross-examination, Padam Kumar's stand that he was engaged in October 2012 remained unshaken. The Labour Court found that he had worked continuously from October 2012 to 7 March 2017 and had completed more than 240 days in the 12 calendar months preceding his termination.

The Division Bench pointed to a significant procedural failure on the college's part. Although an issue had been framed on non-joinder of a necessary party — the onus of proving which lay on the college — the college neither moved to implead the alleged contractor before the Labour Court nor produced the contractor as a witness to substantiate its claim.

Equally telling was the absence of any licence under Section 12 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. No such licence was placed on record to show that the alleged contractor held a valid licence from the competent authority to deploy contract labour. There was also no evidence that the respondent's work was supervised by the alleged contractor.

No material was placed on record to show that salary was disbursed through the alleged contractor. On this basis, the Labour Court had concluded that Padam Kumar was engaged directly by the college, and the Division Bench found that conclusion correct.

Abandonment Cannot Be Presumed

The college's alternative argument was that Padam Kumar had abandoned his job after 7 March 2017 and therefore the college was not required to comply with the Industrial Disputes Act. The Division Bench rejected this too.

The bench observed that non-reporting for duty is a serious misconduct. However, the college had not initiated any disciplinary proceedings against Padam Kumar, nor had it ever issued a notice to him on account of his absence after 7 March 2017. The Labour Court had correctly held that abandonment cannot be presumed, and that before removal, compliance with natural justice was an absolute requirement.

The bench also noted that after Padam Kumar's termination, some other employee had been engaged in his place. This triggered the obligation under Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, which requires that a retrenched workman be given preference in re-employment when the employer proposes to take on fresh workers. The college had not complied with Section 25-H either, and the Labour Court's finding of infraction on that count was upheld.

College Is an Industry; Guard Is a Workman

The college had contested both its status as an “industry” under the Act and Padam Kumar's status as a “workman” under Section 2(s). The Labour Court had returned findings against the college on both counts, holding that the college fell within the definition of “industry” and that Padam Kumar was a “workman.” The Single Judge did not interfere with those findings. The Division Bench, examining the record, found no infirmity in those concurrent findings warranting interference.

The Division Bench's Reasoning on Interference

Justice Bipin Chander Negi, writing for the bench, noted that the Single Judge had exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and had affirmed the Labour Court's award. The Division Bench found that no infirmity had been pointed out by counsel for the college that would call for interference with the concurrent findings returned by the courts below.

The bench observed that since Padam Kumar had completed more than 240 days in the 12 calendar months preceding his termination, compliance with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act was “an absolute imperative must.” In the absence of such compliance, the termination was illegal and bad in the eyes of law. The bench declined to take a different view from the Single Judge.

Outcome

The Division Bench dismissed LPA No. 601 of 2025 as devoid of merit on 26 May 2026. Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of. The award of the HP Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla dated 20 January 2024, as affirmed by the Single Judge on 11 December 2024, stands.