HC upholds reinstatement of security guard, dismisses MMU appeal -

Contents

HC upholds reinstatement of security guard, dismisses MMU appeal About the Author ML Verma

HC upholds reinstatement of security guard, dismisses MMU appeal

Shimla, June 15,

Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Maharishi Markandeshwar Medical College and Hospital (MMU), upholding the orders of the Labour Court and a Single Judge directing relief to a security guard whose services were terminated after he had worked continuously for more than four years.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chander Negi dismissed Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) No. 601 of 2025 filed by the Registrar of MMU against Padam Kumar, holding that there was no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings returned by the Labour Court and the Single Judge.

Division bench passing eight page order against respondent that firing out of respondents is in Violation of workman Act and decision of Industrial tribunal and single bench of high court is against the provision of Industrial dispute Act.

The dispute dates back to the termination of Padam Kumar’s services in March 2017. Kumar had claimed that he was engaged as a Security Guard in October 2012 and continued working until March 2017. According to him, he had proceeded on leave following the death of his mother and, upon returning on March 21, 2017, was not allowed to resume duty.

The matter was referred to the HP Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Kumar alleged that his termination violated Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Act, which provide safeguards against illegal retrenchment and protect the rights of retrenched workers.

MMU contested the claim, arguing that Kumar had been engaged by an independent contractor and not by the institution itself. The college further maintained that Kumar had voluntarily abandoned his job and that there was no employer-employee relationship between the parties.

However, the Labour Court rejected these contentions and found that Kumar had worked continuously from October 2012 till March 2017, thereby completing well over 240 days of service in the twelve months preceding his termination. The court also held that the institution failed to produce admissible evidence supporting its claim that Kumar had been employed through a contractor.

The High Court noted that several documents relied upon by MMU, including the alleged appointment letter, identity card and salary records issued by the contractor, were merely photocopies and their originals were never produced. The Bench also observed that MMU had neither impleaded the alleged contractor as a party nor produced any licence under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, to establish the existence of a lawful contractual arrangement.

Rejecting the plea of job abandonment, the court held that abandonment of service cannot be presumed. The Bench pointed out that no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against Kumar and no notice was issued to him for allegedly remaining absent from duty.

The court further observed that another employee had been engaged in Kumar’s place without complying with the statutory requirements under Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Also Read HC stays trial court proceedings against pharma firm in drugs and cosmetics case

Affirming the findings of the Labour Court and the Single Judge, the Division Bench held that compliance with Section 25-F was mandatory once the workman had completed more than 240 days of service. Since the mandatory procedure had not been followed, the termination was illegal.

Finding no infirmity in the earlier orders, the High Court dismissed the appeal and all pending applications, bringing the prolonged litigation in favour of the workman.