Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – s. 25F – Condition precedent to retrenchment – Appellant was engaged as casual labour in the agriculture farm on muster roll basis – He worked there from 1980 to 1991 and completed 240 days in a calendar year, during the years 1980, 1981, 1982 and 1986 to 1989 – Respondent-State case was that thereafter in 1991 he abandoned the work without informing and never returned to work – In 2005, appellant made representation before the State u/s. 10 – Pursuant thereto, the State made reference to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, which gave the award and directed the respondent-State to reinstate the appellant in service with seniority and continuity while denying back wages – Writ petition filed by the respondent-State – Award set aside by the High Court – Held: It is an admitted position that though the appellant worked from 1980 to 1991 and completed 240 days in a calendar year, during the years 1980, 1981, 1982 and 1986 to 1989 but he worked only for 195 days in the year 1990 and 19.5 days in the immediate preceding year of his dismissal which is below the required 240 days of working in the period of 12 calendar months preceding the date of dismissal, therefore, he is not entitled to take the benefits of the provisions of s.25F of the Act – High Court was right in setting aside the award passed by Tribunal.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Enactment of the Act – Object of.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The Industrial Disputes Act is a welfare legislation. The intention behind its enactment was to protect the employees from arbitrary retrenchments. For this reason only, in a case of retrenchment of an employee who has worked for a year or more, Section 25F provides a safeguard in the form of giving one month’s prior notice indicating the reasons for retrenchment to the employee and also provides for wages for the period of notice. Section 25B of the Act provides that when a person can be said to have worked for one year and the very reading of the said provisions makes it clear that if a person has worked for a period of 240 days in the last preceding year, he is deemed to have worked for a year. The theory of 240 days for continuous service is that a workman is deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year, if he, during the period of twelve calendar months preceding the date of retrenchment has actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days. [Para 9] [733-C-E]
2. Though the appellant worked as such till 1991 under different work/schemes i.e. Rabi and Kharif and completed 240 days in a calendar year only during the years 1980, 1981, 1982 and 1986 to 1989 but he worked only for 195 days in the year 1990 and 19.5 days in the immediate preceding year of his dismissal which is below the required 240 days of working in the period of 12 calendar months preceding the date of dismissal, therefore, he is not entitled to take the benefits of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act. [Para 12] [737-G] Surendra Kumar Verma and Others v. Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, New Delhi and Another (1980) 4 SCC 443 : [1981] 1 SCR 789 ; Mohan Lal v. Management of M/s Bharat Electronics Limited (1981) 3 SCC 225 : [1981] 3 SCR
518 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.