Summary
The claim that the casual workers had completed 240 days of continuous service raised disputed facts requiring evidence under the Industrial Disputes Act. The High Court should not have directed consideration of regularization through writ jurisdiction. The workers were given six months to pursue the statutory remedy, with interim protection for those still in service.
Issues
- Whether the High Court could direct consideration of casual workers for regularization where their continuous-service claims were disputed and statutory remedies under the Industrial Disputes Act were available.
Provisions considered
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaWrit jurisdiction is discretionary; where the claim depends on disputed facts and an effective statutory remedy exists, the High Court may require that remedy to be pursued. (¶ 15-21)
- Section 10, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947The workers could seek adjudication of their continuous-service and regularization claims through the industrial dispute reference process. (¶ 21-24)
Held
- The claim that the workers had completed 240 days of continuous service in the preceding twelve months was disputed and required evidence and evaluation by the appropriate forum. (¶¶ 10, 21)
- Given the available remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act and the disputed factual issues, the High Court’s direction for regularization consideration under Article 226 could not stand. (¶ 15-22)
- Workers still employed were protected from disturbance for six months so they could pursue statutory remedies and seek interim relief. (¶ 22-24)
Result
The appeals were allowed, the High Court judgment was set aside, and the workers were granted six months to pursue remedies under the Industrial Disputes Act.