Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

23. Even assuming the respondent's own case that he was appointed on 27 February 2020 and terminated on 4 April 2020, he could have worked only about forty days. Therefore, continuous service of 240 days is not established, and statutory protection is unavailable.

24. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that resolution dated 11 December 2019 sanctioned appointment of various categories of employees and the complainants were appointed pursuant thereto. Though some claim earlier association, all wp14730-2025 & connected-J.doc received appointment letters dated 27 February 2020. They worked as temporary operatives, received wages by cheque, were issued tickets and marked attendance through biometric system. Records remain in custody of the employer. Termination is alleged to be victimisation and the direction of the Commissioner is not binding on the Labour Court. Even otherwise reinstatement without back wages is justified.

wp14730-2025 & connected-J.doc On the point of Victimisation:

48. The respondent argued that even assuming the requirement of 240 days service is not strictly satisfied, reinstatement could still be granted because the termination was an act of victimisation. According to him, the employer acted out of hostility and therefore the Court should grant relief irrespective of technical requirements relating to continuous service.

49. This submission cannot be accepted in the present facts. Before examining motive, the Court must first be satisfied that the person complaining was in fact a workman of the establishment. Victimisation presupposes an existing employment relationship. If the very appointment is doubtful and not proved by reliable material, the question of punishing the employee for extraneous reasons does not arise. The law does not recognize victimisation in vacuum. It arises only after employment is established.

50. Secondly, allegation of victimisation must be supported by some objective circumstance such as selective action, disciplinary targeting, discriminatory treatment or retaliation for lawful activity. Here the action complained of followed a general order of the competent authority staying the appointments themselves. The employer acted uniformly upon that order and issued a public notice implementing it. Such conduct is consistent with compliance rather than hostility. Therefore, the argument that reinstatement should follow on the ground of victimisation cannot be sustained. In absence of proof of valid appointment and in absence of material showing targeted action against the wp14730-2025 & connected-J.doc complainant, relief cannot be granted merely by attributing motive to the employer.