In Brief
Two daily-wage workers employed by a Sanskrit university from 1993–1997 were terminated without notice or compensation after the university de-regularised their appointments. The Industrial Tribunal declared the termination illegal under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The High Court reversed this, reasoning that since the appointments lacked statutory procedure, Section 25F protection did not apply. The Supreme Court upheld the illegality but modified the remedy. It held that Section 25F protection applies regardless of appointment method or status—only that the workman completed 240 days of service. However, for daily-wage workers, monetary compensation (₹2.5 lakh each) was more appropriate than reinstatement, which would serve no practical purpose given no right to regularisation.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.