Mohd. Ali vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh

The Supreme Court held that the dismissal of the appellant, a casual labourer, violated Sections 25F and 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as he had completed 240 days of service in a calendar year, thus entitling him to protection under these provisions. The Court found that the High Court misinterpreted these sections, particularly regarding the requirement of continuous service prior to disengagement. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and reinstated the appellant with seniority and continuity of service, while denying back wages.