In a significant ruling by the Delhi High Court, the case of Central Board of Secondary Education vs. Ramesh Kumar addressed the legality of the termination of a daily wage worker employed by CBSE. The matter centered on the Labour Court’s award passed in March 2016, which held that the termination of Ramesh Kumar’s services was illegal and in contravention of Sections 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court had directed CBSE to reinstate the workman along with full back wages and consequential benefits from the date of his termination in May 2005.

CBSE, through its legal counsel, contested the award by filing a writ petition, primarily arguing that Ramesh Kumar did not satisfy the statutory requirement of 240 days of continuous service in any calendar year. The Board maintained that the respondent had worked only intermittently over a span of nearly ten years, rendering services for a total of 373 days, and had not worked at all during several years including 1997, 2000, 2002, 2003, and 2004. It was also pointed out that Kumar failed to raise objections to the seniority list published in 2004 and did not report for duty despite repeated call letters issued in 2006, 2007, and 2008. His name was eventually struck off from the list in 2009, based on a mutual agreement with the workers’ union.

Further, CBSE contended that the proceedings before the Labour Court were held ex-parte due to administrative oversight and that the Board was not given a fair opportunity to contest the claims or present evidence. Counsel argued that the reinstatement order was disproportionate and emphasized that monetary compensation, rather than reinstatement, would be a more appropriate relief, citing several judgments from the Supreme Court.

In contrast, Ramesh Kumar, represented through counsel, argued that his termination was illegal and arbitrary. He relied on the fact that he was part of a seniority list prepared in accordance with earlier court directions and that he had duly notified CBSE of a change in address in 2007, a fact that the Board had ignored. He alleged that communications regarding further engagement were misdirected, leading to the unjust termination of his services. The respondent also pointed to orders passed in earlier proceedings, where an injunction was granted against disengaging casual workers and where the High Court recognized the misuse of such labour by CBSE.

The Labour Court, in its award, accepted Kumar’s submissions and found that he had, in fact, rendered continuous service when considering judicially recognized periods during which disengagement was prohibited. The Court relied on his inclusion in the seniority list, earlier judicial proceedings where his rights were acknowledged, and a lack of rebuttal evidence by CBSE due to the ex-parte nature of the proceedings.

Upon review, the High Court declined to interfere with the findings of fact reached by the Labour Court. Citing judicial precedents, the Court underscored the limited scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 when dealing with factual determinations made by specialized tribunals. It was observed that since CBSE had not participated in the proceedings before the Labour Court and failed to establish that the award was perverse or devoid of evidence, no grounds for intervention existed.

However, acknowledging the passage of time, and the evolving jurisprudence around relief in such cases, the High Court modified the Labour Court’s award. Instead of reinstatement with back wages, it granted a lump-sum compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs to the respondent. This amount included the wages already disbursed under Section 17B of the ID Act and was considered adequate recompense given the circumstances. The balance was directed to be paid within three months, failing which an interest of seven percent per annum would apply.

The judgment exemplifies a balanced approach, where procedural lapses by employers are not allowed to defeat the substantive rights of workers, yet the relief is tailored to ensure fairness without imposing undue hardship on public institutions. This case also reinforces the importance of participation in judicial proceedings and the perils of non-appearance, particularly by large organizations. It reaffirms the protective nature of labour laws while recognizing practical considerations in determining the appropriate remedy.