Sh. S.K. Bhadula vs IIT on 2 September 2026

(1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), the Government of India, through the Ministry of Labour and Employment, vide its Order NO-L-42012/229/2010-IR(DU) dated 11.04.2011 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between workmen and managements for adjudication by this Tribunal in the following terms: “Whether the action of the management of IIT, Roorkee, in terminating the services of their workman Shri S.K. Bhadula from the post of Junior Lab Assistant, w.e.f. 31/12/1990 without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947, is legal and Justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?” The claimant in his claim statement stated that he was appointed by the respondent-University on 18.01.1985 as Junior Lab Assistant in the Department of Civil Engineering against a scheme known as ‘Pollution Modelling of Upper Ganga Basin’. His appointment was made on the recommendations of a constituted Selection Committee and was initially on a temporary basis on a consolidated salary. The workman claims that he continuously worked on the said post for about three years without any break. It is further averred that on 06.04.1988, the management appointed the workman as Prayogshala Assistant in the Civil Engineering Department in the pay scale of Rs.354–550/- for a period of three months. Though there was a break of three days between the two appointments, the same was later condoned by the University vide order dated 10.05.1988. Thereafter, his services were extended from time to time through various letters dated 28.07.1988, 07.10.1988, 09.12.1988, 30.01.1989, 25.04.1989, 16.05.1989 and 21.08.1989. According to the workman, there was a break of about two months during September and October 1989, however, the claimant submitted that he had in fact continued to work during the said period, as apparent from the Attendance Register. He also alleged that salaries for these two months were also not paid to him. Subsequently, vide order dated 05.12.1989, he was appointed for six months on a consolidated salary of Rs.1,000/- per month. Thereafter, vide letter dated 16.01.1991, his services were continued up to 31.12.1990 on the post of Ex-facto Dean, Research and Industrial Liaison. The workman also alleged that there was two month of break, i.e., in August and September 1990, he had continued to work during that period and had been paid his salary. The claimant further stated that he had rendered more than six years of service with the management and had regularly discharged his duties to its satisfaction. However, on 09.03.1991, he was orally informed by the Coordinator, Agra Project that his services were no longer required and that he should not report for duty from the following day. He requested the management several times but no written order or termination letter was provided to him. The claimant

further stated that the post of Prayogshala Technician on which he was working was vacant at the time of his termination, while the management was taking steps to fill the same through direct recruitment. No notice was served upon him and no retrenchment compensation was paid before terminating his services. Aggrieved by his termination, the workman initially approached the Allahabad High Court by filing Writ Petition No. 7465/1991, which was subsequently transferred to the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital (Writ Petition No. 4018/2001 (S/S)). The writ petition was allowed in his favour vide order dated 19.07.2006, where the Hon’ble Court had permitted the claimant to continue to perform his duties with the management. The management preferred Special Appeal No. 108/2006, which was disposed of on 02.12.2009 as both parties agreed that the workman would pursue his claim under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Thereafter, the workman filed a complaint before the Zonal Labour Commissioner, Dehradun on 11.02.2010, which was subsequently transferred to Delhi. On these grounds, the workman alleged that his termination was unfair, unjust, arbitrary and illegal and prayed for reinstatement with continuity of service, full back wages and all consequential service benefits. In response, the management filed its written statement where it raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the dispute. It further submitted that the Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee was not an “industry” within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and, therefore, the present dispute is not maintainable. It was further contended that the claimant was allegedly terminated in 1991, and the same has been challenged after an inordinate delay and is barred by laches, as the claimant himself admitted that almost 20 years had elapsed since his termination. On merits, the management has stated that Sh. S.K. Bhadula was initially appointed as Junior Laboratory Assistant on 18.01.1985 in the Department of Civil Engineering, University of Roorkee, against a sponsored project known as ‘Pollution Modelling of Upper Ganga Basin’, sanctioned by the Government of India, Department of Environment. His appointment was made on the recommendation of a duly constituted Selection Committee pursuant to advertisement of the

post, on a consolidated salary of Rs.600/- per month. However, the appointment was expressly temporary and was valid only for the duration of the project/scheme. He joined duties on 19.01.1985 and continued till 31.03.1988, when the project came to an end. The management has asserted that, since the claimant would have been jobless, efforts were made to accommodate him against suitable vacancies for which he possessed required qualifications. Therefore, after the completion of the project, the workman was engaged from time to time on contractual basis on the recommendations of the Professor and Head, Civil Engineering Department. He was appointed as Laboratory Assistant on 06.04.1988 for three months, or until a regularly selected person was appointed against the post, whichever was earlier, in the pay scale of Rs.354–550/- . The management asserted that the terms of each appointment clearly specified that the engagement was temporary and that his services could be terminated at any time without prior notice. Similar temporary engagements were made for different periods through OMs dated 20.07.1988, 04.10.1988, 30.01.1989, 25.04.1989, 01.06.1989 and 21.08.1989, in each contract, the condition was that the appointment would automatically come to an end upon expiry of the stipulated period or on appointment of a regularly selected candidate. The management further stated that there were several intervening periods during which the workman had no appointment, including the period from 01.04.1988 to 03.04.1988, from 03.10.1988 to 04.10.1988, and subsequent breaks between different contractual engagements. The management denied that the break during September and October 1989 was mala fide. According to the management, the workman had no appointment after 05.10.1989 and had nevertheless entered his name in the Attendance Register on his own without authority. Therefore, unauthorised signing of the Attendance Register, could not create or establish any relationship of employment in the absence of an appointment letter. Consequently, he was not entitled to salary for any period during which he was not appointed. The management has further stated that vide letter dated 05.12.1989, the workman was engaged on contract basis in the Civil Engineering Department as Prayogshala Attendant for six months at fixed monthly wages of Rs.1,000/-. As the appointment was made on

the contractual basis, it was clearly mentioned in the appointment letter that his service could be terminated at any time without prior notice Thereafter, he was again engaged on contract basis as Prayogshala Assistant for three months with effect from 08.06.1990, at fixed monthly wages of Rs.1,000/-. The management further denied that the workman was orally terminated on 09.03.1991. Its case is that the last contract with the claimant expired on 31.12.1990 and, as a result, his services came to an end with effect from 01.01.1991. Since no appointment was made thereafter, no question for issuing any termination notice arises. The management has also contended that the claimant was not a “workman” within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. It further submitted that satisfactory service record is irrelevant, as no disciplinary action had been taken against him and the termination of his engagement was only on account of expiry of the contractual period. With regard to the earlier litigation, the management has stated that the workman filed Writ Petition No. 7465/1991 before the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court seeking stay against interference with his duties as Prayogshala Technician and payment of arrears of salary. Thereafter, the writ petition was transferred to the Hon’ble Uttarakhand High Court at Nainital and registered as Writ Petition No. 4018(S/S)/2001. 2. Vide order dated 19.07.2006, the learned Single Judge allowed the petition and observed that there was no order of termination and directed that the workman be permitted to continue to discharge his duties and further directed that he be denied back wages and it was left open to the University to pass appropriate order. The Institute filed Special Appeal No.108/2006. The operation of the order of the Single Judge was stayed on 19.12.2006 and finally vide order dated 02.12.2009 the Division Bench allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 19.07.2006 and granted liberty to the workman to avail his remedy under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in accordance with law. Lastly, the management denied that the claimant was terminated illegally by them, and stated that the workman’s engagement was purely temporary and contractual, and his last appointment expired on

31.12.1990. Therefore, it prayed that the claim be rejected and the reference be answered in favour of the management. Rejoinder had been filed by the claimant where he denied the averments made by the management in its written statement and affirmed the averments in made in the claim statement. Though no issue had been framed for adjudication, the reference itself is being treated as the issue. This Tribunal has to answer whether terminating the services of the workman without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Act is legal and Justified. In his affidavit by way of evidence, the claimant, Sh. S.K. Bhadula, substantially reiterated the case set up in his claim statement. He deposed that his appointment was initially made for the “Pollution Modelling of Upper Ganga Basin” Scheme and that, thereafter, he was engaged by the management from time to time on different posts/assignments. He relied upon the various appointment letters and other records to substantiate his claim that he worked with the management for more than six years. The claimant further stated in his affidavit of evidence that breaks in his engagement was not genuine and he had continued to discharge his duties during said periods. Specifically, he relied upon the Attendance Register to support his assertion that he had worked during the alleged break in September and October 1989. He further deposed that his services had been discontinued without any notice or compensation. He reiterated that his service record was unblemished and that he had satisfactorily discharged his duties. He further stated that the post of Prayogshala Technician was vacant when he was prevented from discharging his duties and despite his experience and qualifications, the management had not considered him for regularisation. The claimant relied upon and tendered the following documents in support of his case:  Ex.WW-1/A – Original appointment letter dated 18.01.1985.  Ex.WW-1/B – Recommendation letter dated 24.03.1988.

 Ex.WW-1/C & Ex.WW-1/D – Appointment letters dated 04.04.1988 and 06.04.1988.  Ex.WW-1/E – Document dated 02.06.1988 relating to salary for the period 01.04.1988 to 31.05.1988.  Ex.WW-1/F to Ex.WW-1/L – Subsequent appointment/engagement letters issued during 1988–1989.  Ex.WW-1/M (colly.) – Attendance Register for the period 01.09.1989 to 01.07.1990.  Ex.WW-1/N – Appointment letter dated 05.12.1989.  Ex.WW-1/O – Judgment in Writ Petition No.7465/1991, subsequently registered as W.P. No.4018/2001 (S/S).  Ex.WW-1/P – Judgment dated 02.12.2009 in Special Appeal No.108/2006.  Ex.WW-1/Q – Letter dated 14.10.2004.  Ex.WW-1/R – Complaint dated 11.02.2010 submitted before the Zonal Labour Commissioner.  Ex.WW-1/S – Letter of the Assistant Labour Commissioner dated 28.07.2010.  Ex.WW-1/T – Order/schedule relied upon by the claimant. In his cross-examination, WW-1, Sh. S.K. Bhadula, admitted that he was initially appointed as Junior Laboratory Assistant w.e.f. 18.01.1985 against the sponsored project “Pollution Modelling of Upper Ganga Basin” in the Department of Civil Engineering, University of Roorkee, and that the said project came to an end on 31.03.1988. He further admitted that his following appointment was formally made vide Ex.WW-1/D dated 06.04.1988 for a period of three months with effect from 04.04.1988 and that the said appointment was temporary in nature. He also admitted that he was appointed by the management from time to time, as admitted by the management in the Written Statement. The claimant further stated that there was no break in his service during his entire tenure with the management. With regard to the period from 01.04.1988 to 03.04.1988, he denied that he had not worked with the management and stated that the then HOD, Shri J.C. Naiyar, had asked him to work in the laboratory from the next day. He denied his temporary appointments automatically came to an end upon expiry of the periods mentioned in his appointment letter.

The claimant stated that the documents relied upon by him supported his case of continuous engagement and denied that he was not entitled to the relief claimed. In short, the claimant admitted that his initial appointment was project-based and his following appointments were temporary, but he denied that there were any breaks in his service and he continued to work during the intervening periods. In response, the management filed its evidence by way of affidavit of MW-1, Sh. Bane Singh Meena, Assistant Registrar of the management. The witness in the affidavit reiterated that the claimant's initial appointment as Junior Laboratory Assistant was against the sponsored project “Pollution Modelling of Upper Ganga Basin” and that the appointment was only till completion of the said project. He stated that the claimant joined on 19.01.1985 and continued till 31.03.1988, when the project came to an end. According to the witness, the management made efforts to accommodate the claimant against suitable vacancies and engaged him from time to time on contractual basis. MW-1 further deposed that the claimant's last engagement was on contract basis for the period from 01.10.1990 to 31.12.1990. Upon expiry of the contractual period and completion of the project, the services of the claimant were no longer required. He further stated that the claimant's engagements were purely temporary, and appointment letters clearly mentioned that the contract would cease to exist upon expiry of the stipulated period, and there were breaks in service between the various engagements. He also stated that the claimant was not appointed against any regular vacancy. MW-1 further stated that the claimant had not been appointed through the regular selection process involving advertisement, Selection Committee and recommendation by the competent authority. He therefore stated that the claimant was not entitled to any relief. The management relied upon the following documents:  Ex.MW-1/1 – Authorisation letter dated 12.02.2019 in favour of the deponent.  Ex.MW-1/2 – Letter dated 18.08.1983 regarding the research proposal for “Pollution Modelling of Upper Ganga Basin”.

 Ex.MW-1/3 – Advertisement dated 13.11.1984 for the sponsored project.  Ex.MW-1/4 – Office Memorandum dated 18.01.1985 regarding appointment of the claimant as JLA.  Ex.MW-1/5 – Office Memorandum dated 30.01.1985 regarding joining the project/scheme.  Ex.MW-1/6 – Letter dated 05.12.1986 regarding financial assistance for the research project.  Ex.MW-1/7 – Letter dated 11.01.1988 regarding termination of the project w.e.f. 31.03.1988.  Ex.MW-1/8 – Office Memorandum dated 27.02.1988 regarding one month's notice in terms of the temporary appointment.  Ex.MW-1/9 – Office Memorandum dated 28.04.1988 regarding relieving of Sh. S.K. Bhadula.  Ex.MW-1/10 – Letter dated 10.11.1990 regarding the claimant's engagement in the project w.e.f. 01.10.1990 on contract basis. The witness was cross-examined at length, where he admitted that:  He admitted that he could not say whether all the claimant’s salary records and other service-related documents had been preserved by the management. He then stated that the service record of the claimant had been placed on record.  MW-1 admitted that the claimant’s service was never terminated, though he stated that it ended with completion of the project. He further admitted that after completion of the original project, the claimant was allowed to work in another project.  With regard to the claimant’s salary from 01.04.1988 onwards, MW-1 admitted that the salary might have been paid on account of the claimant’s engagement in other projects.  MW-1 admitted that the salary records for the period 1985 to 1990 were no longer available in the Accounts Office, having been weeded out pursuant to the order of the competent authority.  Regarding Ex.WW-1/M, the attendance register relied upon by the claimant, MW-1 stated that it was an old register and that he could not comment upon the manner of its maintenance, as he had not joined IIT at that time.  He further stated that, unless the original register was verified, he could not say from Ex.WW-1/M (Attendance Register whether the

claimant had worked during the period from 01.10.1989 to 31.12.1989. It is also important to mention here that during the pendency of the present proceedings, the claimant, Sh. S.K. Bhadula, expired on 01.03.2025. Thereafter, an application dated 07.07.2025 was filed by his son, Sh. Prashant Bhadula, seeking substitution of the deceased claimant and his impleadment as the legal heir. The said application was allowed by this Tribunal and Sh. Prashant Bhadula was accordingly brought on record as the legal heir of the deceased claimant vide order dated 21.07.2025. During the course of final arguments, the Ld. AR for the claimant filed written submissions reiterating his claim and relied upon the oral and documentary evidence on record, particularly the appointment records and the attendance register (Ex.WW-1/M), to contend that the claimant had continuously worked with the management for more than six years. It was stated that the claimant's services had been discontinued orally and without any notice or compensation, in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. He relied upon the cross- examination of MW-1, and stated that the management’s witness did not dispute the attendance register relied upon by the claimant. The Ld. AR for the claimant further submitted that the continuous appointments and the claimant's continued discharge of duties proved that the engagement was not temporary or project-based. Reliance was placed upon the judgments in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Hariram, Civil Appeal No.20902 of 2024, decided on 29.01.2025, and Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya, Civil Appeal No.6767 of 2013, decided on 12.08.2013. On these grounds, the claimant sought reinstatement with continuity of service, back wages and consequential benefits, including PF and gratuity. The management did not file any separate written submissions and reiterated the stand taken in its Written Statement that the claimant had been engaged only on temporary/contractual basis against different projects for specific periods, and there were breaks between these engagements. His last contractual engagement expired on 31.12.1990 and there was no termination which required compliance with Section 25F of the Act. The management accordingly maintained that the claimant was not entitled to reinstatement, regularisation, back wages or any other relief.

I have gone through the pleadings, evidence and documents placed on record. It is not in dispute that the claimant was initially appointed on 18.01.1985 as Junior Laboratory Assistant in the Department of Civil Engineering, University of Roorkee, against the project “Pollution Modelling of Upper Ganga Basin”. It is also not in dispute that the said project came to an end on 31.03.1988. However, it is equally clear from the record that after the completion of the said project, the claimant was not discontinued from the establishment. Rather, he was appointed/engaged by the management from time to time through various appointment letters and was permitted to work in different projects/assignments. The claimant has placed on record his appointment letter dated 18.01.1985 (Ex.WW-1/A), recommendation letter dated 24.03.1988 (Ex.WW-1/B), appointment letters dated 04.04.1988 and 06.04.1988 (Ex.WW-1/C and Ex.WW-1/D), subsequent appointment/engagement letters (Ex.WW-1/F to Ex.WW-1/L), appointment letter dated 05.12.1989 (Ex.WW-1/N) and the Attendance Register (Ex.WW-1/M colly.). These documents show that the claimant remained associated with the management for a significant period and that his services were extended from time to time after the completion of the initial project. It is pertinent to mention here that MW-1 himself admitted in his cross-examination that after completion of the initial project, the claimant was allowed to work in another project. He further stated that the salary of the claimant from 01.04.1988 onwards might have been paid on account of his engagement in other projects. Thus, the management itself admits that the claimant continued to work with it even after the completion of the initial project. MW-1 also admitted that the claimant's service was never terminated, and the same had come to an end with the completion of the project. The aforesaid contention of the management cannot be accepted in view of the evidence and circumstances brought on record. The claimant has also relied upon Ex.WW-1/M, i.e. the Attendance Register, to show that he continued to attend his duties during the periods which are claimed by the management as breaks in service. Though the management has disputed the continuity of service, MW-1 admitted that he had no personal knowledge of the claimant's service and that his statement was based upon the records. He further admitted that the salary records for the period 1985 to 1990 were not available,

as the same had been weeded out. He also stated that without verification of the original Attendance Register, he could not say whether the claimant had worked during the disputed period reflected in Ex.WW-1/M. Thus, the management has not been able to produce sufficient record to conclusively establish that the claimant had not worked during the said periods. In the present case, the claimant was not engaged only once for a short and specific period. He was initially appointed in 1985 and thereafter his services were continued through continuous appointments for about six years. Even after the completion of the initial project, the management itself made further engagements and permitted him to work in other projects. In these circumstances, the management cannot be permitted to abruptly discontinue the services of the claimant simply by stating that the last period of appointment had expired, particularly when the claimant had been associated with the management for several years through continuous engagements. It is also significant that there is no written order of termination/disengagement placed on record by the management. The claimant has stated that on 09.03.1991 he was orally informed that his services were no longer required and that he should not report for duty thereafter. The management has taken the stand that there was no termination and that the claimant's services had simply come to an end on expiry of the last contractual period. However, considering the repeated engagements of the claimant, his continuous work with the management after the completion of the initial project, the evidence regarding his attendance and the absence of any termination letter, the said stand of the management cannot be accepted. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that the claimant had rendered about six years of service with the management through continuous engagements and that his services could not have been abruptly brought to an end in this manner by the management. The action of the management in preventing the claimant from discharging his duties, without any notice or compensation is in violation of section 25 of the Act, and therefore, is held to be illegal and unjustified. The question that now arises is with regard to the relief to which the legal heir of the deceased claimant is entitled. As a general rule, where termination is held to be illegal, reinstatement with full back

wages is an appropriate relief. However, it is well settled that reinstatement is not an automatic relief of an illegal termination and the relief may be moulded by the Industrial Adjudicator according to the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, during the pendency of the proceedings, the claimant, Sh. S.K. Bhadula, had expired on 01.03.2025. Consequently, the relief of reinstatement can no longer be granted. However, the legal heir of the deceased claimant, having been brought on record, cannot be deprived of the monetary relief arising out of the illegal termination of his services. Keeping in view that the claimant had rendered approximately six years of service with the management, the manner in which his services were discontinued and the prolonged litigation pursued by him in respect of his claim, this Tribunal considers it appropriate to mould the relief by awarding lump-sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement and other consequential benefits. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, a lump-sum compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) is considered just and reasonable. Accordingly, the management is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) to Sh. Prashant Bhadula, legal heir of the deceased claimant, in lieu of reinstatement and other consequential benefits, within two months from the date of publication of this Award, failing which the said amount shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the Award till its realization. A copy of this Award be sent to the Appropriate Government for notification under Section 17 of the Act. The file be consigned to the Record Room.

ATUL KUMAR GARG

Dated 02.09.2026 Presiding Officer

CGIT – cum – Labour Court – II