A colliery retrenched a badli workman without notice or compensation. The Court held that 240 days' actual work in twelve calendar months constitutes one year's continuous service under s. 25B, satisfying s. 25F despite interruptions; the termination was unjustified and the appeal was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
EMPJ,OYERS IN RELATION TO DIGW ADIB COLLIERY A
v.
THEIR WORKMEN
March 22, 1965
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C. J., K. N. W ANCHOO.: M. HIDAYATULLAH AND V. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] Ind.w;trial Disputes Act (14 of 1947), ss. 25B and 25F-Continuous servi'ce, meaning of.
A bad!i workman· worked as the appellant's employee for more than 240 days, with interruptions in each of the calendar years 1959 and 1960. He was retrenched in 1961. An industrial dispute having arisen, it was referred to the Tribunal, which held, that the appellant was not justified in terminating the services of the workman as the provisions of s. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were not complied with.
Tn its appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that the section could a.pply only if the workman had put in 240 days' conti. nuous service in any of the years 1959 and 1960.
HELD: Section 25B says that, for the purpose of s. 25F a workman who, in a period of 12 calendar months has actually worked for not less than 240 days shall be deemed to have completed one year of continuous service. Service for 240 days in a period of 12 calendar months is equal not only to service for a year but is to be deemed continuous service even if interrupted. Therefore, though s. 25F speaks of continuous service for not less than one year under the. employer, both the conditions are fulfilled if the workman has actually worked for 240 days during a period of 12 calendar months. It is not necessary to read the definition of continuous service in s. 2(eee) into s. 25B, because, the fiction converts service of 240 days in a period of the twelve calendar months intn continuous service for one complete year. [451C-E]
The amendments introduced by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1964 into ss. 25B and 25F only removed the discordance between the unamended sections 25B and 25F (b) and vagueness which existed previously. But neither before the amendments nor after, is uninterrupted service necessary, if the total service is 240 days in a period of 12 calendar months. [ 452D-E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 43 of 1964.
B
c
D
E
F
G
Appeal by special leave from the award dated August 3, 1962 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad in Reference No. 56 of 1961.
B. Sen and I.N. Shroff, for the appellants.
The respondent did not appear.
H
;, ;Sfhe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
· 'ifldayatullah, J. This is an appeal by special leave against the Award dated August 3, 1962, of the Central Government Indus-
-··- tria} Tril:>unal Dhanbad, under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947
,! -- 448
DIGWADIH COLLIERY v. WOI\KME-'< (llidayatuUah, J.)
449
No workman employed in any industry who has been in cont;nuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until-
[1965] 3 e.c.R,
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
A
been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice:
Provided that no such notice shall be necessary if the retrenchment is under an agreement which specifies a date for the termination of service;
• B
The section, if it applied, had plainly not been complid with in respect of any of the conditions precedent. faldhar Singh, as seen already, had not been given any notice or wages in lieu of notice or paid compensation and no notice had been served on the appro· priate Government. The termination of service would, in these circumstances, be illegal. But the Employers pointed out that s. 25F required two conditions: (a) continuous service and (b) service for not less than one year, and contended that these conditions were not fulfilled as the service was not continuous but broken. They relied on the definition of "continuous service" in s. l(eee) which was introduced by the same amending Act:
"2(eee) continuous service means uninterrupted service, and includes service which may be interrupted merely on account of sickness or authorised leave or an accident or a sqike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the work- man;"
c
D
E
F
The workmen, on the other hand, relied upon the provisions of s. 25B which read:
"25B. Definition of one year of continuous service.
G
For the purposes of sections 25C and 25F, a workman who, during a period of 12 calendar months, has actually worked in an industry for not less than two hundred and forty days shall be deemed to have completed orie vear of continuous service in the industry.
Explanation.-In computing the number of days on which a workman has actually worked in any industry, the days on which-
H
{a) he has been laid off under an agreement or as permitted by standing orders made under the Industrial Em· ployment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, or under this Act or under any other law applicable to the industrial establishment, the largest number of days during
451
DIGWADIH COLLIERY v. WORKMEN (Hidayatullah, J.)
A
which he has been so laid-off being taken into account for the purposes of this clause,
shall be included."
Mr. B. Sen drew our attention to the Indul;trial Disputes <Amendment) Act 1964 which was passed last December. By s. 2(iii) of the amending Act of 1964 clause (eee) of the second sec G tion of the principal Act was omitted and bys. 13, for s. 25B in the princ;pal Act the following was substituted:
tl965j 3 3.C,It.
452
SUl'llEME COURT REPORTS
, he shall be deemed o be in continuous A
service under an employer-
(a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer B for not Jess than-
(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other c case; "
The Explanation to s. 25B is the same, mutatis mutandis as before. Mr. Sen contended that the change in the Jaw brought out his contention. We do not agree. The amended s. 25B only consolidates the previous, sections 25B and 2(eee) in one place, adding some other matters which are not relevant to the present purpose, but the purport of the new provisions is not different. In fact the amendment of s. 25F of the principal Act by substituting in cl. (bi the words "for every completed year of continuous service" for the words "for every completed year of service" now removes a discordance between the unamended section 25B and the unamended cl. (b) of s. 25B. Neither before these several changes nor after is uninterrupted service necessary if the total service is 240 days in a period of calendar months. The only change in the new Act is that this service must be during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made. The last amendment now removes a vagueness which. existed in the unamended s. 25B.
We accordingly hoH that the decision under appeal is correct. rhe appeal fails' and is dismissed. ·
D
E
F
G
Appeal dismis,sed. ·
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a badli workman with over 240 days' work in each of two calendar years, though interrupted, had 'continuous service for not less than one year' under s. 25F for retrenchment purposes.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Employers in relation to Digwadih Colliery
Their Workmen
P. B. Gajendragadkar
K. N. Wanchoo
M. Hidayatullah
V. Ramaswamy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
